vegaseller

I bought a 996 (2003) turbo on the basis of it hitting the bottom of the depreciation curve in 2014, with some pricing upsides. It has since then flattened out but I spent on average 2-3k/year on maintenance/expensive one-off parts failing. But it is definitely fun though and rates were low (1.75%). I may refinance the car again now that it is mostly paid off.

Honestly I think it will be down to Austin and Northern Virginia Austin: HQ to wholefoods, Blue Origin DC/NoVA: AWS HQ, Washington Post and Bezos bought a mansion next to Obama and Ivanka. philly and raleigh are possible but don't have the airports. denver and west coast is redundant at this point.

Most people's consideration of valuations, and including professionals simply boils down to - Market comps EV/EBITDA are 7 and this company is 9, therefore it is expensive. - The more prudent does some sort of growth CAGR normalization But fundamentally aren't companies suppose to be unequal and subject to the 80/20 rule? Wouldn't the best company be significantly better run and better compounders than the #2/#3, etc. Then why do comps matter?

Actually the interest thing about DSC is that their razors are manufactured by a company called Dorco and sold directly through Amazon. I wonder if the future of CPG shifts away from Brands and back into the OEMs.

I agree, I think KO has some ability to price segregate. Although I was more comparing it to say mobile games, where you have the ability to offer the product to most customer for free but also have the ability to capture people who will spend thousands. The model where you are trying to find the 1 person who would spend the $1000 rather than the 1,000 people who would spend a $1 seems to be the winner in the new world.

I would argue mind share has changed significantly over the past 10 years due to the rise of mobile and the consolidation of the internet by categories

Going to be stepping on some holy grounds here so please hold the crucifix for now. One of the things I got to thinking over the past several years was about whether the business model we have seen Buffet and other investors invest in continue to make sense or not. I know this sound crazy but hear me out. We all know the story of Coca Cola, the low price, inelastic, semi-addictive product then converted into large global distribution base and brand portfolio. The story of the company for the past 40 years was about building out this massive global distribution footprint to the point where it was easier to find a bottle of coke in some rural Indian village than a bottle of water. But there are some problems to this model, primarily that A) You can't really find another 1-2 billion consumers now B) It is hard to capture consumer surplus (price segregation is impossible and C) it is hard to capture increasing share of the consumer wallet as living standards improve. (people will cap out on how much product to drink a day). And I got to think about the problem with mass distribution or infrastructure models, usually the core is highly profitable and end up subsidizing the hinterlands, the last mile country road to a small town is a very unprofitable investment. In my mind, this is also a problems existing CPG companies face, the last customers is hard to reach, expensive to acquire, at some point it is much better to increase wallet share and/or capture the consumer surplus of your core base of customers. This is why targeted ads are changing marketing so much, as it allows companies to price segregate by customers (different tier of a similar product) and big data is so valuable (increasing wallet share). I wonder if the time for traditional companies that relies on the formula of building out distribution, acquire/develop a bunch of products and push through your channels is over. The rise of third party infrastructure rails like Amazon and facebook for distribution and customer aggregation also has removed the needs for doing that yourself. I feel the economic laws revolving around specialization will push companies to being more product oriented and focused on capturing consumer surpluses through niche products. The obvious play is that the infrastructure rails will capture a large part of the economics, but who knows if big scaled brands even exist 10-20 years down the line? Just some foods for thoughts, feel free to join in on the conversation.

No, Amazon is all about orthogonal infrastructure play. Build first party ecommerce -> build out modular infrastructure -> lease to third parties -> tackle only high IRR first party segments using data same play for AWS build own IT systems -> Build out modular IT infrastructure -> Sell to third parties -> tackle high IRR segments (PAAS) Same play for Wholefoods Buy wholefoods -> build out intermediate logistics/store backend -> Sell to mom and pops -> tackle high IRR segments (forcing UPS into peak load areas), etc.

Undervalued relative to yield. Think of the 1950s as high real interest (despite financial repression to burn down WWII debt on the gov bond side), lots of demand for capital, lack of supply of capital. We are now living in inverse world, where there is no demand for capital (companies are buying back shares) and lots of capital everywhere. One just has to look at Japan to see what a low rate world looks like. Now we have slightly better demographics than Japan that keeps the U.S. from full deflation and bond hoarding Japan has seen, but it is not unreasonable to project a Japan-lite scenario where rates are low for a long long time and asset prices just slowly grind up.

i don't really understand crypto. It seems like a successful one required widespread adoption, yet being volatile and hoarded by speculators goes counter to merchant adoption. On the other hand one that is stable and non-volatile which merchants may adopt is not one which you can speculate on. It is basically lose lose.

to be honest, I don't know why people on here constantly pump his stuff, his long term returns have been miserable.