Gregmal

That would be a shame if it is, just when his short would have worked out. I recall Tilson actually writing a great piece on exactly this. Quite humble It was maybe late 2015 into mid 2016 where he acknowledged no longer being able to take it and covering almost all of his short book in November, only to see 90% of them declined by something crazy (like 60% on average) over the next 6 months.

Tilson was somebody who's biggest asset IMO are his connections and ability to pick off other people's investments. That's sounds harsh but I don't mean it in a bad way. His longs were basically Bill Ackman's positions with a couple other big hedge fund hotels sprinkled in, and his short book was basically VIC write-ups.

I think it depends on how far out we want to go. I've said it before but BRK is essentially a collection of great "old economy" brands and companies. If Elon Musk's Boring Company or Hyperloop can successfully send something from CA to NYC in 60 minutes or whatever, couldn't that effect BNSF and all the rails? La Croix and many of the sparkling waters are killing it thanks to newer perceptions of soda that will likely only grow. What will happen to GEICO and insurance companies if people stop buying cars and/or we have predominantly autonomous vehicles? I don't know if these are specifically Amazon threats to Berkshire, but technology is certainly a major threat to the Buffett kingdom if you are looking out several decades.

True, but what is the point of continuing to discuss an investment on a value board if it has already reached (or is near) intrinsic value? There's really not much incentive (for me at least) to continue to discuss value investments that have worked. When that happens, it's time to move on to the next hated stock. Just my two cents. Maybe I'll clarify as perhaps I could have been clearer. Rereading what I wrote may have, although not intentionally, come off a bit schmucky. Ideas that are under-followed or out of favor typically don't have huge followings. Is/was SHLD or VRX really out of favor? Surely it was polarizing but every value investor in the world was in SHLD. FNMA is obviously different. Its either worth 0 or way more than it trades for today. But what I've seen is that a large chunk of the talk and speculation seems counter productive as people obsessively over do it with the speculation. Making things seem more of an issue than they truly are. SHLD again for instance, there was and is so freakin much of the "what does Lampert/Berkowitz have up their sleeve" type stuff that perhaps it blinded people from the obvious fact that the business sucked and the properties were valuable and that time would be a negative carry, especially with a downturn in the economy or retail sector. These are just lazy examples; there's definitely more of them, but I guess my point is that I think people over/under estimate the importance of a lot of the things they spend a lot of time pondering. Hence the huge threads(from my perspective) seemingly having a high correlation to big time stinkers. And I say all this as someone who has owned SHLD here and there over the years and is currently long FNMA.

Yea I've actually noticed that the most popular ideas/threads here(outside of BRK&FF), the ones with a million comments and everyone frothing about the value, are largely major duds. Definitely some psychological stuff behind it. SHLD and VRX probably the most glaring recent ones. I'll even add in FELP, which while the original posters made money, I'd presume there are a lot of bagholders who got carried away and are now underwater with the stock off 50% from the highs. People get way too attached and biases are deadly.

As someone who has gone through the whole identity theft thing, it's a pain, but in today's day and age, it's inevitable and you are better off getting it over with. Long story short, I was getting what I thought were spam calls. Eventually I picked up and it was a collection agency. They said I owed Verizon $1900. I double checked all the info, and sure enough, my social was on file and shortly after I moved from my college apartment to my house, a Verizon account had been established in my name in Brooklyn(I live in North NJ). I confirmed I'd had a continuous account with another provider for a decade, and that I no longer resided at the address on file when the account was opened. I had to file a police report and contact the credit agencies, and that was it. The collection was removed from my credit report and as a result, the credit bureaus had to enroll me in a special program for people who were victims of identity theft. This included an automatic freeze and verification on my accounts upon any new credit inquiries, plus free freeze/unfreeze of access to my credit reports, all for seven years. It's been a slight hassle when applying for new credit, but otherwise I sleep well at night, and thats the point I guess.

Used to play quite a bit, along with Chess. Both I think are great supplemental, yet fun ways to develop a mental state necessary to succeed with investing. I remember talking to someone who was quite ecstatic about his last couple trades. The subject came up about how there really isn't much structurally different from the trades that work and those that don't; it's really just luck/variance when the framework used for the trade is the same. Which is exactly like poker. You have a strategy and the cards can fall however. You're not great at poker because you hit a straight on the river just as you aren't terrible because your straight loses on the river because your opponent landed his full house/ But over time if your strategy is sound and you have the discipline, you should make out alright.

The retail investor does not really have a fair way to get into stuff like this. If you do, it will be through murky private placements where you're being giving indirect ownership and paying incredibly high mark ups and sales fees. Or at least this is the case 95% of the time.

I don't know if he is out of context, but the idea of throwing 90% heck even 50% of ones assets in an index fund at any one given point in time is asinine. At least, I would say to dollar cost average it in there over a span of 5-10 years if its a large sum of money. If you're a 25 year old kid, sure, throw your $10,000 in starter money there. But any sort of meaningful savings being chucked into anything, let alone an index fund in one shot, is incredibly risky. If the next big crash is right around the corner, you are f***ed.

For some of them, you need to go to HQ with a ski mask and a gun. All kidding aside, typically I've had success buying a few shares, then in direct order depending on results, email, call, send certified mail asking for information on company financials and the date of the AGM.

TPL.

If we're talking about current 2017 investments that have performed the best, NVTR. Although I hate talking about things like performance on the internet because not only is it unverifiable, but its completely useless to me going forward. Telling someone I made x%, or someone telling me they did the same does nothing for anyone. I'd almost prefer hearing from people with losses cuz at least you know they are being honest. Future ideas, which are much more productive discussions, I'd say GEOS and MSGN are things I like. MSGN just because they have one of a kind assets and a motivated seller. Not huge upside, maybe 30%, but I think it's dirt cheap with limited downside. GEOS I think is at an inflection point and with a slight uptick in the sentiment around oil markets, ready to double, at least.

NVTR

AAL

I'd probably say the odds are greater that all of these things, and probably others that emerge, will collectively cause a 25% erosion over a moderate period of time. I think today's market is more-so a byproduct of a lot of conditions and none individually IMO are going to change so drastically that we have a huge and sudden rug pulled out from under us. What's more likely is they have a gradual and adverse impact on global economies and on many companies and as such we get some sort of EPS related correction over the course of a few quarters.

IMO there are specific things that are in a bubble, but the stock market as a whole is pretty fairly valued. Undervalued even if you use the yield based argument as touched on in the above chart.

Dimon is a champ. Hands down one of the best CEOs/leaders in the world. He is 100% right.

North NJ and South FL

I would imagine the same is largely true of nurses. Some people just like to complain. It's also kind of cool now a days to be self righteous and a PC police officer. The other day I actually had someone argue with me that woman typically having smaller feet than men isnt an evolutionary byproduct of their environment; an advantage allowing them to get closer to the sink and as such, why they are better at washing dishes... (kidding, of course)

I was going to comment but forgot, but I've bought all the mattresses for my house through Costco. Paid I think $1600 for a King and a Queen. Essentially, Costco is in the ballpark enough with pricing that I can sleep. On a $900 mattress, maybe I can spend lots of time trying to find it for $800, but I know what I'm getting more or less so its more convenient to just accept getting a good-average price thru them. Not like a $4,500 mattress that I'll find $1,500 cheaper somewhere else. Found the same thing with patio furniture, some furniture, and even some more expensive tools/home maintenance equipment. With Costco I know I'm getting a quality item, if not their return policy is excellent, and I'm getting a good price. Saves lots of time and energy

God, add this to the list. Just like the threads on politics, there's 3 types of commenters. The genuinely curious, the instigators, and the "oh no we can't talk about this" crybaby bunch. I didn't think the topic is out of line. It's a pretty fascinating subject matter actually when you start looking at the psychology of it and specifically if certain types of temperaments are more prevalent. As someone mentioned, I've met some extremely bright women whom kick ass when it comes to risk management. I've run into a number of female investors who seem just as capable as the men I know. They're just much rarer to find and I personally know and communicate predominantly with men. This was a male dominated business for a long time; this shouldn't be shocking to anyone. I think the bigger issue is recognizing the skew in numbers, and then realizing that investing as a professional takes a certain mindset that hardly comes natural for most. As I mentioned in my first post, the worst investors I've ever met are men. Probably the entire top and bottom 10. It's no slight to any woman out there. It's completely unrelated actually. Just a bi-product of their being more men in the financial world, and as a result the people whom are promotional and well known or even infamous, thus tend to be men.

For a market that is cruising and at all time highs, I think it's super important to note the stealth corrections that have taken place over the past few years in a number of sectors. Commodities, oil, biotech, social media, REITS, retail. This one has all the markings of the next one to get hit.

Just from my own personal experience. The smartest women I know let men handle investing for them. The smartest men I know, some are very good at investing, some are very bad at investing, some let other people handle investing for them. Wouldn't read too much into either though.

I've had pretty solid results with cars. Outside of my first one where I was 23 and wanted an Audi and just walked into the dealership and said if you can get this to my office by 4pm I'll take it. Stupidity. Since I've bought 3 cars. What I've found is that bringing a trade-in always helps. Adds another area where you can negotiate. Also typically from August thru EOY they get very promotional. I've seen some utterly ridiculous deals advertised, ie brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee lease for $175 a month. Of course its a bait and switch, but walking in there and pointing to a paper saying "this is what you advertised, and this is what I'll pay, not a penny more" gets things done, IF you make it clear to them you already have a car, do not need a new one, and are more than willing to walk out the door(and actually walk out the door).

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking. I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc. Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly". But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments? Not taken the wrong way at all. Open dialogue is great and honestly this IS a big issue facing future generations and imo a worthwhile discussion; not just the law schools either, but universities as a whole. In regards to your points, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, the schools need to be reigned in for sure. But I also think this just excuses people not being diligent. If I buy Company XYZ stock, I damn well better be doing more than just reading the Company's investor packet... Same applies here. Smarter people(especially the type that one would think fall into the category of lawyer capable people) are typically very curious and inquisitive. They are critical. Naive generally wouldn't be a word to describe a person with the skill set needed to pursue a law degree. There is also a sense of entitlement that comes with taking these schools at their word. I should be a lawyer, despite perhaps inferior marks. I should have someone offer me 80k/year once I graduate. But I've never met anyone successful who wholly carries this mentality around that things will just be given to them. No one in their right mind should really think they are coming out of a mid tier school and starting at Baker McKenzie. That would be like graduating from Elon in SC with a 3.5 in Business Administration and expecting a job in investment banking at GS. Outside of the bigger name firms in bigger cities, its small and mid tier firms and associates typically start at 35-60k a year if they are lucky. This is not hard material to find. Otherwise, your only option is going out on your own, which is a roll of the dice and typically even there, you dont make shit for several years. Perhaps getting long winded, but this truly is a fascinating subject to me because of its far reaching and treacherous ramifications. I originally looked into law. Growing up I always wanted to be a lawyer. I went to a small, typical rich kid, 4 year school. I looked at the most popular majors for law school students at the time and picked two, history and English to double major in and graduated with a 3.9. I scored mid 160s on LSAT. Then, among several things, the financial crisis occurred and the idea of spending 3 more years in school, accumulating 150-200k in debt, and then having to be a slave at 50k/yea for 5 years, did not appear attractive to me as getting into the financial world near a generational bottom. Maybe I'm different though. My sister is brilliant. Aced the SATs first time taking them, full ride to UF, always wanted to be a biologist. Knew all along she wouldn't make shit, but she wanted to do something she was passionate about. My younger brother always wanted to be a doctor. Studied hard, got into a good med school, and along the way, always joked, I'll be up to my eyeballs in debt until I'm 50. He knew pay trends weren't what they used to be for doctors doing what he wanted. Decided to do it anyway, but he knew what he was looking at. My youngest brother decided at 16, "I want to be a biomedical engineer". Why? "I'm going to make a shit load of money". And so far, that's what he is doing. I've never met someone qualified to do something, who doesn't know what they are getting into prior to making such a life decision. The one example I have of this, was an old friend. Never the brightest of the bunch, lazy, real leaf floating in the wind. Mediocre high school grades, never went to a real university. Spent 3 years and 30k at a for profit getting a degree in surgical technology thinking he'd transfer to a real school and become a doctor(pipe dream from day 1). Graduated with his degree, which he pretty soon found out wouldnt even transfer over to local community schools. He now delivers packages for Fedex. After starting a landscaping company and failing. So to me I guess, the horrible law school results is more symptomatic of people being allowed to foray into areas they don't belong or shouldn't be in the first place. Couple that with these same people typically being naive and probably uniformed, mix in schools being deceptive and misleading, and yea, we've got problems. The only real answer IMO is being more proactive about teaching people how to identify their strengths, and teaching them how to exploit those strengths. I never saw kids in wheel chairs doing competitive swimming in school. I saw a lot of idiots pursuing MBAs and grasping for a law degree.