watsa_is_a_randian_hero

among paid i am partial to capitaliq

I think this survey would have been more useful with buckets of -10+ -10 to -5 -5 to 0 0-5% 5%-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-30% 30%+ Over 10 years, most people are going to cluster around 0-15%. should break that up into more buckets. I'm at 17.4% annualized, but I only have 8 years of reliable data.

Was this survey intended to ask the question "What is your personal portfolio size?" or "What is your assets under management?"

YTD personal return is about 25%. That said, my personal return from 1/1/2010-12/31/2011 was about 0% (though return in accounts managed for family members was higher than my personal due to larger concentrations personally). So I've looked at '12 as just making up for poor results the prior 2 years.

I second that. On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions. I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses. He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large. Between the three, I'll go with Clinton. W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine. The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan. And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch. W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there. You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then! I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton. Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them. I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do. Cheers! I obviously disagree strongly with your political views. I also disagree with your understanding of the facts. W did not nearly take down the financial system. Did the system get near the brink of collapse? In many ways, Yes. Was it W's fault? If so, how? What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system? Tax cuts? Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them. Medicare Part D? I have not heard anyone call for its repeal? Two expensive wars? While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession. Budget deficits did not cause the recession. Crony capitalism? Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history. How is this W's fault any more than Congresses? In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws. (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes. It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault). Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc). It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen. Fannie and Freddie? The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes. How is a President to prevent a housing bubble? Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders. Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks? Not solely, but it certainly contributed. Did W repeal Glass Steagall? Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past? And therefore we need a new course. Of course they don't mention many specific policies. Interesting. Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton. They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future. US global stature is not the best barometer. Wars will lower your support. That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. As for oil production increasing. Come on. Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it? What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production? How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken? How is he helping offshore drilling? It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles. By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil. Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis? He stabilized the financial system. That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency. Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about. He "saved" the auto industry. That too was funded under TARP. Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners. He passed a stimulus bill. Most recognize it for what it was. A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice. He has had four years. He chose not to. Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number. He was the House Minority Leader. Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders. Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party. When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them. Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change. Time for change. +1 Did W (or reps) create Fannie/freddie and encourage them to expand into subprime? No, in fact reps tried to curb them and were stopped by Frank. The housing bubble was caused by TOO much gov involvement, NOT TOO LITTLE. -low interest rates -tax subsidies -Fannie/Freddie -Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies creating oligopoly -Regulation on insurers/banks/pensions encouraging reliance on ratings and lack of due diligence -FDIC charging same rates to bad banks as good banks, encouraging risk taking Parsad - you really think W caused the crisis?

often I'm able to repeat it through multiple cycles on the same stocks...the stock may be even flat over a holding period, but I end up with gains in the IRA and losses in the taxable account.

I've sold out of positions such as WMT, reduced positions such as ATW. For other positions, I've sold the position in my IRA and concurrently purchased it in my taxable account. I tend to like to reserve the funds in my IRAs for my conviction investments for the largest potential tax-free gains. If something has risen and I'm unsure if I should sell, I use that as a sign its probably a good idea to sell in the IRA and buy in the taxable account (ie, if I'm questioning if I should sell, its surely no longer a conviction holding).

during 2007 and 2008, the pricing of FFH would also follow its peers (other insurers) and trade down during time periods when the firm was actually making money (its CDS bets were paying off). For those of us that dug into NAIC filings and found ORH's disclosures of which CDS it owned, it was possible to estimate real-time what its gains were. There were times in 2007-2008 that I had over 100% of my net worth in FFH, if the options were looked at on a notional basis. In absolute terms, over half of all of the money I've made throughout my life on investments was made either on FFH or ORH. I currently don't think its that great of a value, but I still hold what would be thought of by traditional asset managers as an oversized position. Since earlier this year, I've actually owned a larger position in the long-term bonds paying 7.75% than the stock.

2 things... I don't think either candidate would try to immediately balance the budget. However, I do believe a gradual shift in policy towards a balanced budget (including entitlements) would improve our nation's health. Further, my comment was regarding "market friendly" was more about regulations/obamacare and less about budget deficits. I do believe that the additional regulations put in place, and the uncertainty over implimentation is holding back hiring and business investment, at the margin. Re: commodities. I had the same comment, I am with you here. However, I would like to now add the caviet that a freefall in commodity prices would be damaging. A large portion of the economy is tied to the resource space - refinement, exploration, transportation, capital equipment, etc. Any fall in prices large enough to cause resource companies to cancel/limit future exploration projects would be bad for the market. I think we are in the sweet spot right now - prices not to high, not to low.

-Europe surprises with coordinated effort / Eurobond -China could surprise to upside and avoid "bust". I feel like everyone loves the idea of China "busting". It provides assurance that America is still #1 while conveniently invalidating their planned economy. And while there is evidence of a decline, their population is still very rural/uneducated. Technology today makes it very easy and speeds up the process for a larger and larger % to become urbanized and contribute towards China's industrialization. With so much negative news baked in, what if China surprises to upside? -US continues its trend of employment growth (albeit slow). Every additional employee earning $40k and paying taxes rather than consuming forms of welfare (99 weeks unemployment, etc) is a huge benefit. So, even reducing unemployment by 1% / year (which we are trending) should be huge for the market. -Energy commodities remain relatively cheap -Possibility of more market-friendly president in 4.5 months. -Possibility of removal of all of ObamaCare (while I think insurers may fall in short-run as this hurts near-term enrollment, I believe it will improve long-term profitability) -While the market is expensive on Shiller's PE basis, the ratio of current adjusted earnings relative to the min of the last 10 years is at an all-time high (indicating Shiller's historical 'E' is most likely underestimating future 'E') -Supercheap interest rates for corporations to lower their costs of capital. -HARP should provide refinancing servicing/origination fees to banks.

I was trying to buy a rental in Phoenix and was looking during 2011 and beginning of 2012. By the end of 2011 things were really heating up. Unless you were an all-cash buyer, and you put a bid in on the very first day a property was on the market, there was no chance of getting a good deal. Ultimately I decided to stop looking because of the amount of time I was spending on it without any results.

I sold out of about 2/3 of my FFH holdings over the last couple years at average prices of 400+. I've reinvested half of the proceeds into their 2037 bonds and the other half into much better values. Why did I sell? 1. I don't think it is that great of a value - the bonds are paying a spread of 550 (i've hedged the fixed to float) are a much better value than the stock. Other opportunities as well. 2. I don't like to speculate on short term performance (which is why I still hold a large chunk of FFH and haven't sold it all), but I'm skeptical the stock will really advance anywhere in the near term. Investments are hedged, so there is limited room for gains. long bonds have been sold. 3. My net worth was very exposed to large cat risk because of how large of a holding FFH was. I was comfortable with this risk when it was trading below book and a great value. I wasn't comfortable with this when valuation levels increased.

I'm from the states, so I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is (1) asset swaps are a legal way in canada to achieve mortgage interest deductability and (2) Canadian culture is such that debt is used less (and therefore deductability is less influential), as the aggregate homeowners' mortgage balances are about half that of their US counterparts, in terms of LTV. ...and, btw, I am not a foe of your proposition to "end loopholes" in general. I would be a huge fan of a much simpler tax code. A consumption-based alternative would be the best in my mind, a flat income tax a close second, or even a progressive income tax with no deductions a better option as well. However, under the current system (1) you cant effectively get rid of interest deductability without also banning it for corporations, and (2) In order to keep the tax code consistent/symmetric as it is in other areas (such as my life insurance example), you would also need to remove interest income taxation.

I don't understand argument for ending mortgage tax deductability. Everyone talks about it with the assumption that it somehow contributes to inflating housing prices. I guess there are a few basic things I think that most people (who argue for ending the deduction) haven't considered: 1. Ending this deduction without ending the deduction for corporations for interest on debt will not work. You can't have one without the other. If you try to end mortgage deductions without ending corporate interest deductions, everyone will just do the equivalent of companies doing sale-leasebacks (sell their homes to corporations that can take advantage of interest deduction, and then rent it back. I don't think most people have considered this. You just have to include a tax avoidance clause to disallow the credit in related party transactions. Even without related party transactions...there is a degree of efficiency to the market economy. If you allow businesses to deduct interest but not individuals, businesses will have a cheaper cost to owning real estate, and through competition of landlords, this will be passed on to tenants in the form of rent. In other words, rents are lower than they would otherwise be if landlords did not have the luxury of interest deduction. By allowing businesses the ability to deduct and not individuals, over time individuals will find it is cheaper to rent than buy, and home ownership levels will decline severely. Any logical individual who still wants exposure to real estate, would rent his own home (because rents would be implicitly reduced by mortgage deductability for landlords) and buy a separate rental property. You don't need related party transactions for the "invisible" hand of the market economy to work. I stand by my claim that if the government wants to effectively remove the deductability of interest, they will need to do it for both businesses and individuals, and this will not happen as it will cause large scale declines in asset prices.

I don't understand argument for ending mortgage tax deductability. Everyone talks about it with the assumption that it somehow contributes to inflating housing prices. I guess there are a few basic things I think that most people (who argue for ending the deduction) haven't considered: 1. Ending this deduction without ending the deduction for corporations for interest on debt will not work. You can't have one without the other. If you try to end mortgage deductions without ending corporate interest deductions, everyone will just do the equivalent of companies doing sale-leasebacks (sell their homes to corporations that can take advantage of interest deduction, and then rent it back. I don't think most people have considered this. 2. If you end interest deductability (for both corporations and people), this is likely to affect housing prices, and it will also cause the stock market to decline significantly (WACCs for every indebted company increase). What politician wants this on their hand? 3. If you end deductability of interest expense, it only logically makes sense to end the taxation of interest income. Most interest in the country currently is tax-neutral; one party gets a deduction and the other party pays income tax. There are many parts of the tax code that a similarly neutral; you pay life insurance premiums with after-tax dollars, but your beneficiaries will not owe tax on the death benefit. The capital markets have become accustomed to this neutrality for interest, and it naturally makes logical sense.

you are correct sir

interesting...wsj just put out an article that seems to show Dave taking the exact opposite tone...almost bullish: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/06/14/a-noted-market-bear-gets-a-little-bullish/?grcc=88888Z0ZhpgeZ0Z0Z0Z0Z0&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_markets

Anyone research these before? Any idea why they are all trading very cheap (3-5x PE, 5% yields), besides the obvious of sensitivity to china and the world economy in general? Multiples for each are at or near all time lows (PE, PTB)

the rich won't have money any more to allocate towards frivolous items like this after the buffett rule ...oops...

Over the last 11 years I've worked at 3 firms. Once 401k balances got sizeable enough to where the differences in expected performance between me and the fund managers of funds offered outweighed the admin fees involved in taking a loan, I would take a 401k loan, deposit it into my after-tax trading account, and use that to get access. A lot of firms cap loans at 50k though (might be legal restriction?), so if you have a large balance then 50k could be peanuts.

+1 on JPM / AIG I'm not really in any of the others.

Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics

my biggest complaint about the sources I use for news (yahoo finance, capital iq) is that news stories are put in chronological order with no priority given to more important/"trending" stories. This seems like a common algorithm used in other areas (ie, facebook), and bloomberg uses this to keep hot stories at the top for a while, but every other financial source seems terrible with this. It is really bad when you have a watchlist that includes largecap names. You get a sh*tload of garbage news stories in yahoo finance every day for largecap names that have 0 relevancy. For instance, the top 3 stories for BRK-B @ yahoo finance right now are: How Buffett Invests Like a Tigerat Motley Fool(Mon 2:50PM EDT) 5 Stocks to Buy Before Facebookat Motley Fool(Mon 1:11PM EDT) Annual Warren Buffett lunch auction begins SundayAP(Sun, Jun 3) The top 3 stories for XOM are: BP Is Stupid Cheap, And I Continue To Back Up The Truck!at Seeking Alpha(Mon 4:55PM EDT) Chevron and Ecuador Drop the Gloves in Canadaat Motley Fool(Mon 3:52PM EDT) The Ongoing Hunt for Valueat CNBC(Mon 3:45PM EDT) With garbage like this, it is difficult to filter what is important and what is not.

"The German two-year yield slid to as low as minus 0.002 percent" As I said before, I think when these have crossed 0, it is only marginally crossed 0, and I believe it is due to supply/demand issues in the short run. -0.002% is basically 0%. If the curve went from 2.5 to 0 or 2.5 to -0.002% it is the difference between losing 75% and losing 75.06% on the trade. Not a big difference.

YTM. While that has happened with the 90 day bonds, I don't see the 30 year going to a negative yield. Anything can happen, but I think it is a lot less likely to have the entire treasury curve below 0, as opposed to a small portion of the curve below 0. I think the small portion (90 day bonds) went below 0 at times due only to supply/demand issues in the short term, and it did not stay there very long. Even today with the 10 year hitting new lows, the 90 day bond is positive yield.