rolling

My outside and little informed opinion: 1- Blockchain is likely to revolutionize lots of industries. Thankfully (I think) it is not proprietary. 2- Blockchain currencies? To me, it sounds like tulips all over again: red tulips, yellow tulips, black tulips.... 3- is there any real difference between bitcoin and the coins one collects at some online games? For the moment there is a cashout, but will it in the future?

A guy mentioned it in a forum, since I took him for a good investor I researched it and went crazy and started accumulating every share i could buy... It was a no brainer, and some better than expected news made it an even better investment to the point of it still being cheap by now... The funny thing is that while i valued the guy highly (I still do), he was still a youngster and had no money available to invest himself back then (i believe he is currently taking CFA level 2)... But I'm pretty sure he will end up well...

My 2017 better idea: august is already ending but since i picked up as many as i could at and before the start of the year making it over 30% of my portfolio back then, I believe there is no hindsight bias: Estoril Sol sgps https://www.euronext.com/pt-pt/products/equities/PTESO0AE0000-XLIS Operates 3 casinos in Portugal, won an online license to operate an internet casino in Portugal last year (sold 50% of the stake so that the other part entered with the software for free) and won an online sports betting license in Portugal last month (with that joint venture, the other part likely entered with the sofware again) Quoted at 2,66€ to 3,2€ in the first 3 months 2017, has since distributed 0,335€ in dividends and is quoting at 11,2€. I stared my position at 1,15 last year and accumulated on the way up. Started selling a month ago (keeping it under 50% of the portfolio). The funny thing: after last thursday presentation of 1S2017 results I recalculated and reached the conclusion it was still cheap and it was a huge mistake to start selling a month ago, and even now it probably is still a good buy :) My recalculated conservative estimate is that it is worth 17€/share. It might be worth more (or much more) if I am a little more optimistic (some would say realistic) Ps: sorry if it sounds like bragging, but I can't help being happy :)

There is no way it would work: the most important thing to a dictator is his own power. They would rather start a nuclear war and lose their power "with honor" than let their power be undermined by some panflets.

No, he doesn't think that. What happened with this forum? Or is it mainly this thread? Where we you guys when berkshire was trading at $70 and it's BV had much more margin of safety? As has been noted, despite being more expensive it might be a much better buy today than it was back then. Unfortunately i went all in brk-b at 87 in Dec2012. It never went that low again and it was an horrible deal (i sold all my portfolio which was composed of only 3 stocks, which went on to be a 15 bagger, a 6 bagger and a small position in a double). Valuations are relative. Today i think brk is a better deal then it was back then. It is trading at a 15-20% discount to a 10% return (190-200$). How much is this worth? Choose a discount rate and you'll have the answer. An appropriate discount rate for this risk would likely be near 6%, but i don't think anyone would pay that: -active investors seak much more - passive investors don't see an insurance stock as a bondlike investment Anyway, the discount to the 10% hurdle and the likelihood of that result make it a very interesting investment relative to the few alternatives available. I keep brk in my radar in case I stop finding other options.

for the last 6 years I have maintained the habit of reading an economics and business newspaper (the online edition). I skim through the titles and read everything I find interesting. Results: 1- I am always up to date with how the economics is doing 2- Ocasionally I find an interesting idea there (reading through loads of annual reports and fillings would have had a similar result). Examples a) At the start of this habit I found the news about a business annual result, a company I had never heard about. On the coments there was a single coment where someone said: best dividend yield around. Checked it (read the annual report): quoting at 2.x times earnings at the time (highly iliquid, to get in I had to pay up to almost 3 times earnings). I made only 20%(maybe 30% with dividends?) (pre tax) on it but it went on to be a 15 bagger (about a 20 bagger from the too iliquid starting price) b) a few months ago I read about an aquisition. Found it interesting, never had heard about it, took me a month to sell over 40% of my potfolio to get in, got out at a 35% (pre tax) gain in less than two months (average holding period a little over a month)

About reliability, maintenance, Toyota and the future: Toyota is shifting its offer to hybrid vehicles. While market share in Europe has been 4% since 2010, first quarter 2017 hybrid vehicle sales have been 39% of those. In general, hybrid vehicles seem to have much lower maintenance and less accidents. Toyota has a much bigger experience in the area than other brands. The thing is, if all brands accompany the shift to hybrid/electric isn't it possible that the reliability difference will fade? Will Toyota experience in hybrids allow them to keep on top in reliability?

Just to reinforce: living in your 80s does not cost the same as living in your 40s. - you no longer have kids at home - you no longer have a mortgage - you no longer travel as much - you feel safer using your low mileage 20yr old car than driving a new technological car, so you don't have to pay for new cars; - you don't need 3 or 4 cars at home, even if both you and your wife drive, one car is enough to keep the garage almost permanently occupied - soon enough you'll definitely stop driving and only leave the vicinity sporadically - you don't eat out as much; actually you find out that those young "so called chefs" at the restaurant don't know how to cook proper food - expensive hairdressing, make up and state of the art technological gadgets are of less frequent need - etc offsets: -health care costs are higher -when you are no longer able to drive you have increased general costs in food etc because you must pay someone to get you those things or buy things at the lady across the road, who charges about double Walmart

In Portugal meritocracy comes upon admittance. Basically you take years 10 to 12 school year grades (which average with a national examination in each subject) and then the national examination of the specific disciplines important for the degree (like biology and chemistry for medicine or math and physics for engineering) average with that (usually 50-50). Then it happens by national contest: there are X slots in each university for Y degree (chosen in theory taking into account country needs and employment rates) and people choose the degree and university they wish to go to (the most wanted are filled quickly the least wanted sometimes stay empty). Slots are filled by grade. If you didn’t study enough (or if you couldn’t get an high enough grade even while studying) you don’t go to the pretend place (and can either try it or entry the contest one year later). After that people still have to finish their degrees. Government pays most of it, but there is still an yearly fee. Poor people can apply to scholarships (that might pay only the yearly fee or be a bit higher to help cover other expenses). Positives: if you need 1500 engineers a year the government only pays for 2000 (or less). If you take an useless degree (which shouldn’t happen) at least you won’t be indebted for life Negatives: there are still a lot of useless degrees (many people just want to have a degree and it would be unpopular not to allow that…)

Thank you. Never had thought about it :-[ It should help avoiding some risks when thinking about investing in board ideas (either in this board others)

Thank you for your work Basically it comes down to this. Most of us know it, Buffett and Munger keep repeating that but we just fail. My problem is in the "rarely sold" and I don't seem to learn... My turnover is becoming crazy high (I've sold 128% of the value of my current portfolio in the last 2,5 months)... Does anyone know the cure? edit: the value would be 164% of current portfolio if I increase the time range to 4,5 months

Could it be that older users becoming disengaged from the board had a higher likelihood of attending the dinner? Newbies might be: - living outside canada/north america (which makes attending much harder), especially if they are - poorer (being more recent to investing would grant that) - not engaged with fairfax (since fairfax was an opportunity almost 10 years ago but has been lagging in more recent years) Thank you for you effort, I am recent to the board and surely hope it will continue to be an haven for investors out there

In the last paragraph you answered the only critic I had to make. I especially liked the idea of a diversified portfolio allowing you to try new investing styles and improving your circle of competence (I think you did not use this word... maybe investing mental model toolbox). However, that implies you have the time to do that kind of work. However: - If you had a more limited time, you'd probably be better off maintaining your investing style as long as you got reasonable results - a concentrated portfolio does not exclude you from trying new things, you just have to treat them as if you had a diversified portfolio and keep them small until you get confident with them - a more "growth oriented" portfolio and a more refined investing style might not mean better investing results if you are good at the simple things (ok...I might be saying this because I have no idea of the kind of returns a good growth investor gets)

It is amazing how Buffet has this public persona where if you went to work for him, you had a job till you die. But in reality, if you made mistake, you get the boot or as they say "retire". Despite this, I think Berkshire has some of the best executive/employee retention track record. Does anyone here know how Berkshire pays its managers and what are the tools to keep them on? It seems to me he has this low risk culture for subsidiary executives. If they just dividend the money back to him they get paid more; if they risk some money: they better get it right; if they do get it right, then they get to manage a bigger subsidiary and get paid even more; if they get it wrong, they'd have been better off not taking unnecessary risks and letting Buffett manage the money... In other words: they are allowed to shoot fishes inside a dry barrel; if there is still water then they shouldn't risk it. This kind of low risk culture is the exact opposite we see in public companies CEOs and seems to me is a big advantage for Berkshire wealth maintenance objective.

I am trying to understand which company will be selected to the portuguese main index (however my doubt likely aplies to most euronext indexes). The rule book is attached: the selection criteria are in point 5. Since i am not a native english speaker, and I believe there is a problem in my understandig of the details I am asking for help here. From what I undertand there are two excluding criteria: 1) free float must be over 15% 2) free float velocity must be over 25% "Eligible companies are ranked based on the size in terms of free float adjusted market capitalization on the Review Cut-Off Date provided that they fulfil the velocity and free float requirements" After that free float market cap is the ranking criteria, and should be above 100M. I narrowed the problem down to 3 companies to one presently available place on the main index (which MUST be filled): a) None of them fulfills the three criteria above b) All of them fulfill the free float criteria. c) The two smaller companies respect the free float velocity criteria d) Due to its much higher market cap, the other company will be chosen if the free float velocity is over 25% My main problem is in calculating free float velocity of the 3rd company. The problem is: 1) Last November shares outstanding increased from 20 million to 24 million. 2) If I use the 24 million shares the company is excluded (if I am calculating free float correctly) 3) If I use the 20 million shares up to November and the 24 million after that the company is not excluded In a place they state: "As a rule the number of shares that is taken for the selection is based on the number of shares listed on the Review Cut-Off Date." But then: "Velocity is calculated on a daily basis by dividing the number of shares traded by the number of shares listed, adjusted for free float. These daily figures are added up to calculate the annual velocity." And there is also this (but I believe it is irrrelevant since it is about the quarterly reviews): "At quarterly reviews, both the number of shares included in the index and the free float factor will be updated if the free float factor on the Review Cut-Off date deviates by 10% or more from the free float factor currently applied in the index (2 or more bands) and/or if the number of shares listed on the Review Cut-Off Date, deviates by more than 20% from the current number of shares included in the index." Thank you for your help (I can give you details of the companies if needed...) psi_20_rules_version_16-01_jun_2016_0.pdf

which is precisely the same that was in 2014 annual report: So no dividend adjustment. As such, it seems he'll do the trade when not doing it starts meaning losing money.

If he could do the shorting it would have been a huge deal... There were a few times were it approached 53 and then went down to high or even low forties. Could have made some additional hundred millions... Most likely someone did the shorting for him. He hardly could sell all those shares in less than half a month: the sum of all trade volumes on the second half of December was less than those 72,6 M (used google finance data)

More precisely page 112, but the updated numbers are not there either (that's why I searched for the numbers myself...which obviously means I may have gotten something wrong). In previous years these numbers were on the letter (pages 7 in 2014 and 9 in 2015)

Fairly uneventfull letter. My few takeways: a) Sucession: big endorsement of Ajit ("If there were ever to be another Ajit and you could swap me for him, don’t hesitate. Make the trade!") and not a single mention to BH Energy CEO (sorry, cannot remember the name) b) I believe it is the first time he straightforwardly calls Gen Re a mistake due to stock issuance, right next to Dexter shoes c) He has put numbers into Clayton, stating how much the company loses with foreclosures and the total number of foreclosures (18.6 thousand per foreclosure) d) The intrinsic business value section disappeared. I guess we must search for the numbers ourselves Underwriting income: 2131 million=1296$/share Operating pre tax earnings: 5693+2973+8462+1854=18982 million= 11546$/share TOTAL 12842$/sh (+4.4%) versus $12,304$/sh Kraft Heinz at market=28400=17275$/sh Fixed maturity Investments= 23465=14273$/sh Equities= 122032=74229$/sh Other investments= 17256=10496$/sh Cash and eq=70919+3939+11512= 86370=52536$/sh TOTAL=168809$/sh (+5.6%) versus $159,794$/sh Seems his intrinsic value numbers growth slowed down A LOT (which might explain their disappearance from the letter). Also to point out: "The investment portfolios of almost all P/C companies – though not those of Berkshire – are heavily concentrated in bonds." Cash+fixed maturity= 109835 million Float= 91577 million from here it seems the equity portfolio is not financed by float but by equity, so not entirely correct to exclude Berkshire from the comparison, or am I missing something?

Great stuff. Loved the reading Barrons part: 50 years reading to get out a single idea that was a 15 bagger to him (40 bagger in total). I believe a lot can be learned from this: 1) patience is needed: a) both in the waiting, in the holding and selling 2) He recognized the idea as good because he was prepared: a) he knew the type of business and that is was usually sticky b) it was distressed investing, bonds were selling at 30 cents. His knowledge of the business led him to believe it would survive 3) He is looking for high return ideas a) When he considered the idea good enough it went on to be a 40 bagger. b) In 50 years of waiting he certainly refused many certain doubles or triples while waiting for the fat pitch. c) Just to think that I am happy and load up when I find an almost certain double in a few years... 1st post ;D ;D ;D