Myth465

The goal should be to improve your train of thought and analysis. Not to forsake the whole damn thing. If Buffett was Japanese..... Im fully invested, but Macro matters. The more I work at it the better understanding I have.

Honestly I think this type of thinking is counter productive. One can understand that no one knows the future, but its not wise to simple ignore it inmo. This sort of thinking allows one to do just that. Jim Rogers, Prem Watsa, and Michael Burry have shown that understanding how events will play out can be very useful to investing.

5-7 years

I know I am a partisan hack, but I dont see how Krugman has it wrong. Paul Krugman: The Centrist Cop-Out Why won't members of the media "acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional"?: The Centrist Cop-Out, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands. As I said, it’s not complicated. Yet many people in the news media ... portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides. Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally ... at fault on any issue... The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For ... there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault. Let me give you an example... As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain”... To do so, he ... offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. ... But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president ... who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over ... is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance! Which brings me to those “centrist” fantasies..., what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists. But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

How is this not a "value" discussion? Buffett certainly does take a leap of faith when he buys a Wells Fargo. They have 1 and a quarter trillion in assets. That's with a T. Buffett thinks the culture at WFC is good, and he trusts, err, has faith in the company to sensibly loan money. But he couldn't possibly analyze each asset. This is a company that is so big, that they once accidentaly sued themselves over a disagreement between the first and second lien holders of a property, where WFC ended up owning both liens. WFC doesn't even know what they own. How can you say with a straight face that a diligent analyst can? Any huge money centered bank requires a leap of faith. When you have trillions in assets, you have a lot of things that you don't know you own. You also have a lot of hard to value assets and off balance sheet stuff. As Parsad said though, lending has been strict since 2007, and the loan book has taken a bath and is much cleaner. But in the end the only thing you can do is analyze the macro of it all, as there is too much micro to wrap ones head around Lol I agree word for word, and I remember when they sued themselves.

I agree which is why I dont own banks. At some point you just have to place your chips on the table or not. Banking is in the too hard pile until the age of deleveraging is over. Thats my plan.

Krugman and Brooks. Right as usual. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11804 They say things much better then I could.

I think thats the problem with politics. Everyone wants to impose their will on the Public. Honestly the public likes its entitlements. At this point we should just be focused on getting them to pay for them. The GOP wants to impose their will under the guise of balancing the budget. It annoys me. The right level of spending vs. GDP is not really up to me. I just hope whatever it is it its paid for. You can say you want 20%, but the public wants their entitlements and benefits. Personally I would go with 16.3%, buy following Ron Paul / Dennis K and ending at least 2 of the current 3 wars and closing several foreign military bases. Entitlements would be cut slightly, and taxes would be broadened. Lower rates, more people paying, and a higher overall tax take. Im not god though, well at least not yet.

Whats wrong with something like this. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/everything-table-david-walker-plan-restore-fiscal-sanity-181615173.html;_ylt=AgklOvB.FJiXR1Xz67OYyUcp2YdG;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdDRyaDhmBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNZWRpYUJsb2dJbmRleA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpMm9iMzh1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3 It doesnt starve the beast, but solves most of our pending issues. One party however would wholly reject it because of tax increases.

Lol your post is much better than mine. Whats funny is many posters have effectively said the same thing minus the sarcasm.

I think some of you guys are nuts and the country is so polarized, that now even facts are up to interpretation. The House Republicans, control the House after 1 election win. Since when does winning 1 election and 1 seat of power entitle a party / group to get exactly what they want with no compromises? The Dems really have no principles and have put everything up, but they require minor tax raises along with whatever cuts are agreed upon. This makes sense if the goal is to eliminate the deficit, it doesnt really work if all you want to do is starve the beast. The House has basically said its our way or the high way. Those are the facts as far as I can tell. Not sure what you guys are seeing, or where you are getting your news from. Its a game of chicken, where one party is betting the other caves. The republicans are not budging because all of them have signed the Grover N pledge about never raising taxes (which in and of itself is insane)... Obama is spinless and should have put his foot down 3 months ago, perhaps simply saying he wont negotiate with terrorist and will only sign a bill with the issues delinked. The compromiser in chief has brought this upon himself and the country inmo because every issue has been handled like this. All it has done is encourage the right.

Still holding, havent reviewed the fillings though. Im up significantly on the leaps and will have to think about this. I still like WD and find it cheap.

I agree, I came away thinking Sumners isnt that bad. Perhaps everything isnt so black and white.

TX inmo you cant have an honest intelligent conversation with converted Libertarians. They basically want the benefits of a state with only the costs they personally agree with. Its an ideology which inmo always leads to extreme and illogical conclusions..... Those who continue to view problems through the framing of left vs. right are part of the problem inmo. If one steps back its clear to see that one party is spineless, and one wholly irrational. The debt will never be paid down without growth. Policies which cause contraction therefore cant be the solution...... This will have to be solved through tax reform (increases), rational cuts (perhaps ending both wars, and trimming entitlements), and policies designed to deal with unemployment / spark growth. Anything else is just ideology, rhetoric, and a waste of time.

I like someone who I think agrees with me more and more every day (but they dont lol). Humm, interesting post.

Alas with politics people see what they want to see, and its always the other guys fault. This is an easy one, and roughly half the country still blames the wrong party..... Good interview on the subject - http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/dangerous-precedent-being-set-debt-ceiling-debate-galbraith-122432522.html;_ylt=Al1xPhVl6kDf._8vAJ2.YwQp2YdG;_ylu=X3oDMTBqZml0NnE4BHBvcwMxNgRzZWMDRFQgSW5kZXg-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpMm9iMzh1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Thats what I assumed (again incorrectly). It made sense to me because I do believe we are range bound.

Ok thats a bit much. If so then I slightly agree with you that its a bit much. I interpreted it as we would be rangebound for another 5 years or so and then would be able to move into a bull market. I assumed probably incorrectly, that the range bound was caused by macro issues....

What he says right there makes sense to me....

Im not very strict at all. My biggest wins have been turn around plays that worked out well.

I can understand leaving Berkowitz inmo his style has drifted slightly and he is making an all in bet on US financials. If he is too early, its the same as being wrong. I can understand if an investor doesnt feel comfortable with such an outsized bet on financials.

Thanks for the feedback, now I can skip the Whitman books without feeling too bad.

tombgrt - I think you are on the right track. I have learned alot from other people. I would say the best lessons are the free ones (watching other peoples errors), though the ones that linger the longest are your own (it sucks losing money lol). I think a template is a great idea, when I look back at old investment ideas and thesis's, its quite interesting. Amazing how little I knew back then.

Here is my post, very similar to yours. http://cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3835.0 - Does my framework make sense? - Yes - Should I add other qualitative filters? Additional main questions needed in my final evaluation? - I prefer qualitative filters. - Do you have a written down checklist? Do you use a written analysis for each investment or is it all just in your head? If you don't write analyses down extensively, how do you manage to get a proper overview of each investment and how do review possible investment mistakes in the future? - Yes. I keep a running log for each investment with quarterly updates. Mistakes are still made though lol. Finally I believe its not the recipe, but the Chef in investing...

Damn I know who not to piss off lol