Myth465

I would say apple and coke have the same kind of moat. There is nothing stopping anyone from making a cola product either. The brand is the moat. Moats in my opinion have nothing to do with years. If they did GM & Ford would still be on top. I get what you are saying about brand moats. They are kind of scary. But shunning apple for coke - moat wise doesnt make sense. I prefer legal or market related moats. I prefer when people have no choice in terms of using the companies product. Such as a parking garage in a busy medical center, or certain lines of insurance that must be purchased from only a few market players. My favorite moat is legally we are the only game in town. Apple is past the fad point. I have never owned an apple product and use a sandisk MP3 player that has much more features for half the price of a comparable ipod. I have been getting laughed at for 4 years and still get laughed at today. As mentioned above and in the kobo thread Its Ipods or nothing, Iphones or Black berrys, and eventually Ipads and .... Once they have the device they will have tollboth businesses around mobile phones, and pad like devices. They will also have content with advertisers, books, music, and video downloads. I wouldnt bet on apple with my money, but only a fool would bet against it or Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft could just as easily use stock to buy there ways to a cheap PE.

Here is a great post worth reading. "10 Things You Don’t Know (or were misinformed) about the GS Case" http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/04/10-things-you-dont-know-or-were-misinformed-about-the-gs-case.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EconomistsView+%28Economist%27s+View+%28EconomistsView%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

TX those are some good points. I didnt know how prominent the lawyer was, and that detail helps. I find alot of straw mans in this discussion. It seems like a simple case to me relating to discloser. - Zealous Government. - Shorting Seller Hatred. - Sophisticated investors / we are all big boys now. - and my personal favorite, the SEC doesnt know what a synthetic CDO are all straw mans. The case seems to center around the fact that Goldman didnt disclose Paulson's involvement. Lewis saying he wouldnt want someone to do that to him, and asking is that anyway to treat a client gets to the heart of the matter. He says if its not illegal shouldnt it be? ---- Politically this was a brilliant move, like his politics or not Obama is more than just a great speaker. I chuckled a bit Emanuel was on Charlie Rose a few days ago and said the SEC is independent and the timing was just coincidental.

You have to have family, friends, cousins, coworker, an old girlfriend, or someone in the area. I would set the address to my mom and turn on electronic statements for reports and files. Man they are pretty hard core. Lol on the bank logo.

I have been calling for a pull back since 10k and have been dead wrong. I have also made more money now than at any other time (3 years or so in investing). The market seems expensive, but my stocks are fairly cheap. Interesting times, I plan to keep dancing.

This would be a nice surprise. I was expecting more of a ho hum quarter due to the hedges. I hope underwriting / cat losses dont eat through these gains.

I would just us a US based address. Basically I would lie or omit some info.

Thanks I will start digging in. I owned PDS before the GW deal and made some cash. I got out before the massive downturn. I dont like the price they paid for GW, but love the fact that they have entered NA. The problem for me is nat gas drilling is very low, but volumes are fairly high. I think you are right though best to get in now before the turn. I looked at PDS when it was discussed on the board, but cash flows seemed low and debt seemed sky high. Things look much better so I think its time to look again.

Here is an update of the case with Charlie Ross, Sorkin, Micheal Lewis, and a Lawyer. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10973 Listen to Micheal Lewis' repeat of the facts. When he says the people were wonder why Paulson was in the room, and then Goldman told them he wanted a piece of the action says alot. The rebuttal using Buffett though is interesting and is a good counter argument.

Hey UCC, why Precision vs any of the other high quality land drillers. I own Ensco in the Offshore market, but have noticed that the drillers have not been hit at all by this recovery.

I see where you are coming from, and agree to some degree. The only problem is the we are all big boys argument doesn't have much sway when the taxpayers eventually have to foot the bill. If AIG failed and didn't pay up to Goldman and Goldman eventually failed due to their open positions on everyone and everyone elses open positions, then that would work. But AIG was bailed out by the taxpayers which basically bailed out all the other banks. The banks and government have to make a decision - more rules or no government support (full receivership if you screw up), or a bit of both. I and most Americans are probably fine with any of those 3 options, but the parties involved want the status-quo. They want implied support and want to be left alone when they are making cash. Right now its heads I win, and if I lose the tax payers bail us out situation wont work. Now post bailout non of the banks are ok with any rules to prevent this type of action. If things go south they will effectively again have the economy / government hostage again. Letting them fail sounds good, but I dont see too many Fed Heads / Treasury Secretaries having the balls to do that. Here is a good non sensationalized interview on the situation thus far. I look forward to the update which should come out in 2 or so days. http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/10969 You can act as a dual agent, but it is tricky and requires significant disclosures. It seems like the SEC is saying those disclosures were missing here. - This is for real estate, but I am sure brokers have similar requirements. Dual agents have a responsibility to both the buyer and the seller, and must disclose the relationship to all interested parties. A dual agent cannot disclose to the seller what the buyer is willing to pay and cannot disclose to the buyer what the seller is willing to take. Dual agents must disclose all known material defects. Also keep in mind that this market is completely black. These are derivatives contracts and I don't think they are of the exchange traded variety. Also no one is arguing against shorting, only a lack of disclosure. Prem made me some good money shorting and I cant fault him for that. ---------- It will be interesting to watch the fallout. Goldman may be fighting for the long term viability of their firm. On Monday, the case reverberated around the world. Financial regulators in London and Germany said they would open investigations to see if Goldman's sale of mortgage securities broke local laws. Goldman's domestic legal troubles could be compounded abroad as foreign regulators open probes into the investment. London's Financial Services Authority and Germany's BaFin regulatory agency said Monday that they were coordinating with the SEC. The Royal Bank of Scotland lost an estimated $850 million and the Duesseldorf-based IKB Deutsche-Industriebank lost more than $100 million on mortgage-related securities set up by Goldman. [story, A7.]

Lol now thats pretty funny.

But no one is suing Paulson and few are really talking about suing him aside from a few talking heads on TV. I think Paulson, his actions arent any different than Micheal Burry, or even Watsa (he didnt create the securities though).

I think this is a backdoor to Glass Stegall honestly. Its meant to show the SEC has teeth, to make the investment bankers think about the types of business they write, and to let them know they cant do what they want. Its also to show the American people the importance of financial reform. It looks like a way to get the investment banks to realize that playing both sides of the trade opens them up to liabilities. I think you can play both sides, but you need to disclose everything done. They should have disclosed there position, Paulson's intent, and who put together the portfolio in the prospectus. Its like me acting as your buying agent and telling you to buy a car I know is shit that's owned by my Brother. I have some liability don't you think. Yes you screwed up by trusting another human, but Agents, Lawyers, Accountants, and even investment bankers personally cant screw over their clients in this manor legally. GS has several different departments doing all types of things, but I think it will be tough to prove that they all act independently without insider knowledge or info. The US taxpayer lost the biggest pile of cash in this whole situation so I have no problem with the SEC looking into this. I also think they should review these transactions and prosecute when there is a lack of adequate disclosures. Have you read a prospectus. It has everything under the sun regarding risks and disclosures. How could they not disclose that Paulson created these to short them somewhere in there.

Parsad I think people will ignore the merits of your question and will focus on your link - The Huffington Post. Either way its a good question, and its one that hasnt been answered. Why do CPAs and Attorneys have Fiduciary responsibilities to their clients but investment bankers dont? At the very least they should have made disclosures.

I would say the only thing you are missing is the disclosure info to all parties. That alone is probably grounds for some sort of indictment. ---- I think the administration had a bit to do with the timing and that its a good political move. It has really disrupted the Republican plan of killing financial reform by saying the dems are pro big banks. Im surprised with how this has played. Everyone seems annoyed with the big banks and few people seem to be on the side of Goldman.

Carl thats the best analogy I have seen for this situation.

Yes I dont see how investment bankers / broker dont have the due care requirements that Lawyers, Accountants, and Real Estate agents do. You cant work both sides of the deal.

Holding cash for 20 years is the surest way to lose money. Thats why people mention inflation. Between taxes and inflation she is losing money. Buffett said cash for the long term is the worst investment.

This is the shock to the system the market needed and we now have our sell off. Looks like the SEC grew a pair. It even seems like the case has some merit.

Yep, that's exactly why this is hard. There's a reason sound bites don't cut it, and politicians aren't actually stupid; they just have a very different set of constraints. Good point but some are pretty stupid. Here is a good example. Ignoring the religion part the look on his face at the end is priceless and I am still waiting for a youtube clip of this mom lady.

I wonder why they built the airport. Was it a Congressional deal type of thing where a guy wants an airport named after him or is there a need. LOl on the Redneck Riveria keeping any sensible person away.

Thats a tough one. I would tell her to buy the SFK Debentures yielding 15%. Inflation will destroy that $70k, if its not growing its shrinking. I honestly wouldnt be buying FUR now, not till I saw what they did with the loan transactions this quarter. I hold FUR, but wouldnt add. She probably needs a good old bond fund / cash / laddered CD portfolio. I would recommend 35% in a bond fund like PIMCOs. 30% in FPAs Bond Fund (These guys hold significant cash), 30% in cash or cds, and 5% for you to manage (SFK Debentures). --- Personally I would leave her alone. My mom is the same way and would drive me bat shit if I ever tried to manage her money. Show her some clips of Bill Gross or Rodriquez from Wealth Track then show her the returns for 3 - 5- 10 years. If she isnt interested I would leave her alone.

You are probably right. Just a raising tide. I just dont even know where to begin with C. There is probably value there, but I think it would take too much time to get a handle on. JOE is interesting though I think its cheap, but cant find a decent enough catalyst to justify buying it. I think the value is there but that it will be cheap for a while. The market seems a bit frothy but I like all of my holdings. I feel like they are good value but also feel like you would be a fool to hold at this point. Everyone seems to be diving it. I have been calling for a pullback for 6 months now. I think I will continue to hold and will likely regret it at some point.

Why in the hell dont we have logical rules like this. Then CEOs who promise employees the world would have to pay for it, and justify it to there shareholders. 1st I agree with you - we are all a bunch of misfits & psychos on this board :-* 2nd My girlfriend thinks im the cheapest guy in the world. I was telling her about the significant amount of money I made this week on stocks and we were using my airline miles to purchase tickets for vacation. The ticket was 70k miles and $182 in fees for both tickets. I then told her I got an unexpected raise and my largest holdings were up significantly. Then asked her would she mind paying the fee. She said no and that she would right a check. Its the cheapest ticket she has ever bought to fly international back home. See said she would get me the $90. I really wanted her to write a check for the whole amount because I was losing the miles and thought she should pay for the benefit. I was going to tell her she was still saving $300 off the full fare but, figured it didnt sound right considering my week was so good. I passed on correcting her on the amount and still have a strange feeling about it. It reminds me of the story of Graham asking Buffett for a dime to make a phone call when they were in a hurry and him going off to try to find change for a quarter because she only asked for a dime. They say being able to defer gratification is the surest way to predict success. Have you heard of the Marshmellow test. ----- 3. I really like Frontline and feel like they tell things how they are. I do agree with you that the discount of employees causes huge problems. Management makes promises during good times that dont make sense under the treat of unions who want thier pound of flesh. I feel like these folks got screwed, but dont have much sympathy for Auto Workers and only a small amount for Teachers Unions. I think you poison the well with things like job pools where workers or pedophiles go and play cards all day vs simply letting a company downsize and lean up and letting bad teachers go. I believe that the right to organize is fundamental, but you have cant cripple the hand that feeds you. Pensions are one of those things that should be fully funded from the start. Wages and job security need to be allowed to flow with the market. Unions should try to soften the landing, not completely prevent their employees from feeling the fall.