tooskinneejs

I used to love Twinkies as a kid. Then, after not eating one for at least 10 - 15 years, I ate one about a year ago. I guess my tastes have "matured" because it didn't taste as good as I remembered from childhood.

I'm hesitant to add to a political discussion on this board, but a couple of quick thoughts: 1. Romney will have to take 5 of the 7 swing states to win the election. Actually, he can't just take any 5, he'll have to take the 5 with the most electoral college votes. Is that likely? 2. The percentage of white voters (the core of the Republican party) has been on a steady decline since the 90's. Has the percentage of whites in America grown or declined since the last election? And how does that help or hinder Romney's chance of winning given the Republican's core voting block?

Finviz.com

Also: Pitney Bowes (PBI) - down 40%, has a 10% dividend yield (payout ratio of 45%) HHGregg (HGG) - down 50% All of the education stocks, such as Career Education which is down 80% and selling for less than cash (with no debt) Deckers (DECK) - down 55%, makers of Uggs and Teva shoes

Liberty - I'm right there with you rockin a flip phone so old it has the Cingular logo on it. Maybe one day I'll move into the 21st century.

Kraven and Liberty: It's B.S. because 99% of the time it is used, the purpose isn't to accurately reflect the performance of an entity, it's to B.S. investors into thinking the company is performing better than it really is. Companies pass off EBITDA as earnings. That's the reason that EBITDA is often at the top of "earnings" releases or the focus on quarterly conference calls. I get your point about 'a measure is what a measure is' so long as eliminated items are disclosed. And while that may literally be true, that viewpoint ignores the practically implication that this measure is pushed on investors to falsely indicate earnings performance. That's just the reality of the situation. As someone who has spent the better part of two decades dealing first hand with CFO's and their accounting and reporting personnel, I can tell you that this is almost always the case. The companies who use it are simply trying to make themselves appear better and they love - LOVE - investors who are gullible enough to believe that this metric reflects earnings or operating cash flow performance. Want proof? Take a sample of the uses of EBITDA and it's many variations. Count how many times you see companies eliminate other costs or losses from their measure of EBITDA (besides the ITDA) and then count how many times you see companies eliminate good stuff (i.e., income or gains) from their measure. This will say a lot about management's intent when using the measure. And while we can hope that all investors are smart and sophisticated enough to see the measures for what they are - B.S. - I don't believe it is right for companies to put out B.S. with the excuse that everyone should know it's B.S.

Kraven said: "What if I tell you that some guy weighs 200 lb. Is the number bullshit? Does it tell us something? The number itself can't be wrong, it just is." Your analogy doesn't reflect the basic premise of EBITDA, namely, excluding certain items from a measurement. A proper analogy to a person's weight would be as follows: What if I tell you that some guy weighs 200 pounds, but that excludes the weight of his arms and legs. Is that number B.S.? I'd say yes, the number is B.S. It isn't the guy's actual weight. The same applies to EBITDA, it's a complete fairy tale to look to that number as an indicator of earnings or operating cash flows. 99% of the time it is used, the purpose isn't to accurately reflect the performance of an entity, it's to B.S. investors into thinking the company is performing better than it really is.

"Warren Buffett Fires CEO For Taking Island Vacation On Company's Dime" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/warren-buffett-denis-abrams_n_1600382.html#s1103185&title=1964_Investment_In "It's sad to say, but true: Even Warren Buffett fires people. After Denis Abrams, CEO of Benjamin Moore -- a company owned by Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway -- used company money to take his corporate staff on a getaway to Bermuda to celebrate the company’s first quarterly sales increase in years, Buffett fired Abrams, the New York Post reports. The island getaway allegedly included a dinner cruise aboard a yacht that some vacation attendees believed was owned by singer Jimmy Buffett." I'm guessing Buffett nearly pukes when reading the recent reports about Aubrey McClendon's spending.

Looks like this will cover their Seattle's Best brand, which is marketed as a slightly lower-tier product.

U.S. accounting standard setters are considering a change in GAAP that would require operating leases to be presented as liabilities on the balance sheet (with an offsetting asset titled “right to use leased item”). Question: Would this change in accounting principles be useful/preferable to you as an investor?

I doubt his tax savings will be as much as he expects. If he gave up citizenship as of April 30, 2012, then there won't be any meaningful time period between that date and the first day of public trading of the stock. Fair value doesn't change overnight. I suspect the IRS will be all over this and won't allow a large illiquidity discount. Now what would be funny is if the IPO pricing doesn't work out as well as hoped and he actually ends up paying more in tax by renouncing his citizenship.

Here is a good video of an interview with Pat Dorsey (of Sanibel Captiva and formerly of Morningstar) who describes Buffett's discussion of the value of Berkshire. He says Buffett gave more clues than usual as to Berkshire's value. Pat then does a back of the envelope calculation based on Buffett's clues and puts the value at more than $107 per B share. http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?lineup=stocks&id=553021

Good point Hamilton.

benchmark said: "On the other hand, what if the rate jumps to 10% in 7 years...." What are the terms of the 7/1 ARM you are looking at? Most have a maximum lifetime adjustment of 5%. If that's the case, the 3% ARM could never carry a rate higher than 8%. Also, you could refi again after the 7 years is up and switch over to a 30 year loan or maybe even a 15 year loan. And if your principal balance is $100k less than it otherwise would be in 7 years, the payments on the refi'd loan might be pretty good even with a higher rate. A_Hamilton said: "I say forget the 7/1 and use PenFed's 5/5 Program" I've used PenFed in the past. Their rates are good and the fees are very low. But Benchmark is saying he can get 7 years at 3% rather than only 5 years at 3% currently being offered by PenFed. As long as the fees aren't that different, it's definitely better to get those extra two years.

Alright, I'll go against the grain and give the argument for taking that lower, but variable, rate. Using Karl's mortgage calculator at http://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/ : Assume a $400,000 mortgage with a 30 year loan at 4.25%: Monthly payment = $1,968 Principal balance in May 2019 (7 years from now) = $345,454 Next, assume a $400,000 mortgage with a 7/1 ARM with an initial rate of 3.00%: Monthly payment (first 7 years) = $1,686 ($281 less) Principal balance in May 2019 = $335,082 ($10,372 less) The difference in the principal balances 7 years from now isn't that great. However, let's assume you pay on the 7/1 ARM using the $1,968 payment you would have had to make on the 30 year fixed. $400,000 mortgage with a 7/1 ARM at 3.00%: Monthly payment (first 7 years) = $1,968 ($1,686 required plus $281 additional each month) Principal balance in May 2019 = $308,755 ($36,699 less) Now we're talking real money. Then the question you face is what is the risk that rates jump a lot and stay high for the remaining 23 years of the loan. Most ARM's limit the rate change to +5%, so the max rate would be 8%. If it jumped that high and stayed there, your payment would be $2,451/month. Could you handle that increase 7 years from now? Even with the maximum rate jump to 8%, it would take approximately 6 more years (i.e., year 13 of the loan) before your total cumulative payments would exceed those under the 4.25% 30 year fixed. Most people don't stay in a house for 13 years. Maybe you won't. Hope this helps. You should definitely double check my numbers (or better yet, run this scenario using your actual principal balance). Good luck.

Arlington, Virginia, United States.

Thanks so much for posting the link to the article. It was very interesting. I posted about Wayfair on this board back in 2010 (when they were still CSN Stores) as a retailer to watch. For as big as they are and as fast as they are growing, most people still haven't heard about them. Here was my post from 2010.... Re: Overstock Declares War on Online Retail « Reply #21 on: November 02, 2010, 10:09:18 AM » If I were to pick an online retailer to watch out for, it would be csnstores.com. I believe it is privately held. I recently built a new house and ended up making many online purchases for the house (fireplace, ceiling fans, plumbing fixtures, porch swing, etc.). I had never heard of CSN before, but stumbled upon their website as I searched for things. They have a very broad selection of products and their prices were consistently lower than most other retailers (traditional or online only, including overstock). I also found that they had excellent customer service.

In all seriousness, yes. But computer viruses can be a real headache too!

I was hoping that they found a cure for all computer viruses. Oh well!

There is even an 'official website': http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/

"how many shares are we talking?" They have indicated that yet, so there is no way to tell how expensive this will be relative to earnings. It won't be anywhere near cheap, that's for sure.

First glance at financials... Year Ended December 31, 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (in millions, except per share data) Consolidated Statements of Operations Data: Revenue $ 153 $ 272 $ 777 $ 1,974 $ 3,711 Cost of revenue 41 124 223 493 860 Total costs and expenses 277 327 515 942 1,955 Income (loss) from operations (124 ) (55 ) 262 1,032 1,756 Net income (loss) attributable to Class A and Class B common stockholders$ (138 ) $ (56 ) $ 122 $ 372 $ 668 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm#toc287954_8

Hester said: "Maybe Comparing RIMM now to Apple ten years ago doesn't work because the two company's CEO's are different. 10 years ago Apple had some blockhead named Steve Jobs at the helm." The world's view of Steve Jobs now is much different than it was when everyone thought Apple was doomed to fade away or remain only a niche player and, as a result, the stock was barely trading for more the company's net cash per share. History is most useful when not revised.

Stubblejumper said: "What you have in that case is a reprise of WordPerfect..." Eight to ten years ago, people probably made that same analogy when discussing Apple's stock.

If she earned upwards of $500,000 as suggested by that pundit, it seems unlikely that she'd be buying a very modest $144,000 house to retire to.