watsa_is_a_randian_hero

it depends. sometimes the longer dated ones will trade cheaper due to more perceived risk, but being cheaper can reduce your risk if it is so cheap it trades near a recovery rate. For instance, JCP's situation is mentioned. I did the opposite of what was mentioned. I bought the 100-year 2097 maturity, because it was trading cheaper, which in my view provided more protection. Additionally, in the event it survives, there is more upside. I bought in the low to mid 70's. It is now trading in the low 80's. This is a <1% position for me, bought about a year ago. I didn't do a ton of due-diligence on the situation, but was more so following the due diligence of the other large investors publicly investing in both the debt and equity. The equity is a crap-shoot in something like this; its not worth playing unless you have real control and/or insider knowledge. The bonds to me were worth it given the real estate and given it likely would pay out coupons prior to any bankruptcy reducing my cost basis to a point were significant loss was not likely.

If you have a high enough net-worth to self fund the business and your personal expenses indefinitely, it negates the need for finding folks to turn on the lights for you. This increases your likelihood of success...and is the route I'm trying to take...continue to save & increase personal resources to a few million before making the jump.

I had owned Watson from about 27 to 60. sold way to early.

Do you post on http://www.valuebuddies.com/? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on RC5 and NI3

yes, i still own. was my largest holding at one point, prior to this deal was 2nd largest position. last week was a good week...i was fishing in canada all week with no internet and just saw this. pm me if you want to discuss more.

While the press often speaks about "wealth" of the top 1% in terms of income, if you were to actually look at it in terms of net worth the most recent research I saw indicated around $6mm. HOWEVER, much of this research is often very nuanced to me and not clearly specified. I did email capgemini regarding their wealth survey and they clarified that it does refer to INDIVIDUAL net worth, not HOUSEHOLD. So for you and your wife to be counted as a HNWI, you need 2mm jointly in investable assets (not net worth), as opposed to a single individual needing only 1mm.

I see I have a fellow objectivist here... :)

Apologies... I set up the quote wrong when posting. That was intended to be a quote/reply to longinvestor (he wrote that).

I value invest not because I love the process but because I love the results. I value invest because I'm competitive and value investing is the best, easiest process for me to use to produce above-average results. In terms of the question "Do I have enough"...I would interpret this similarly to how I would expect Buffett would. I will keep my competitive drive for more long after recognizing that I have enough. For me having enough is only part of it. I want to do the best I possibly can and earn the most I possibly can, and see how well I can do. I will probably end up donating much of it in the end of life (similar to Buffett), but I still have a competitive drive to see how well I can do in the interim...And viewing the results of a NW poll is part of measuring how well I am doing so far.

yes...the same could be said of the S&P 500 level...investors still use it to benchmark their performance though. I hear what you are saying in terms of it being volatile...however, if everyone is measuring by the same yardstick at the same point in time, they are facing the same effects. IE, its a pretty safe bet most people have a higher net worth now as compared to 3 years ago due to the market performance...the inverse was true if you measured at March 2009. My point is, if measured by the same yardstick at the same point in time, it is useful information in comparing where you stand on a relative basis. If you have $100mm networth, but the average networth is $200mm, then you will not be "rich" or have much purchasing power.

With regards to those discounting the value of these types of polls, I would pose the following question: Do you find it useful to benchmark your investment results? Many investors find it useful to gauge how they have performed relative to their peers. I find measures of NW polling similarly useful to benchmark my retirement prospects and how I am "performing" relative to the rest of society (not to say that this is an unbiased snapshot of society). That said, NW to me is the intersection of savings performance, investment returns, and entrepreneurial success (with some noise thrown in for gifting/inheritance/other factors). That said, knowledge of my performance in those three areas (savings, investment performance, and entrepreneurial success) relative to the general population (or subsets thereof) is very useful to me to reflect upon my own performance in those areas.

What would be interesting to me is to see a plot with NW on one axis and age on another. I would be interested to see what the median and range of NW's are for individuals in various age buckets.

Its not exactly fair to look at that as a full benefit...because while yes you would pay tax on rental income if you were to buy an investment property, you would also be able to claim depreciation and expenses, which you cant claim for your primary residence.

I do this for certain banks/insurers that I think will compound at rates higher than their costs of capital. I usually do a 5-10 year adjustment period, and allow TBV to compound then apply multiple then discount it back. Adjust for payout ratio & stock repurchases. It is a large significant part of some valuations performed.

I just use delayed quotes on my personal account and get live quotes from other sources.

this is off-topic...but- I can't understand that at all. If you were wealthy, then do with it whatever you want with your pets. But I can't understand people who spend so much time and money and personally invested their emotions into a pet when they can barely take care of themselves and their own family. I view it as a luxury (just like a large should be viewed as a luxury). If you are in the middle or lower class and wondering why you have no (or minimal) savings, look at your number of pets and children. I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends with pets complain about money issues. To take it a step even further, I don't understand why is acceptable to society that families might own pets with no restriction who are any sort of welfare, foodstamps, (& now) subsidized obamacare

muscleman- not sure if you're still looking for this, but i did not see it: Puerto Rico Commonwealth PUB IMPT-SER A 5.750 Jul-01-2041 CUSIP 74514LYW1 I have to imagine that issue is referenced in articles often because it appears to have much better liquidity.

I didn't vote as for whatever reason one of the only stocks I posted about this quarter (ATW) was not included as an option.

If it takes a minimum of 500 hours to generate alpha on a stock idea, count me out. I doubt I've ever spent more than 20 hours researching prior to investing. Usually a hour or so analysis; maybe a few hours of digging, and a couple hours of thinking would be typical for me. It depends on the size of the position too. For my largest positions (which don't always start as large), I'm doing a lot more digging prior to making additional investments, but I may have invested in those same securities too start at a smaller position with not quite the same level of due diligence.

I think it still depends. For me, I'll most likely be looking to start my own firm at some point. My taxable income will likely be lower to start at that point, and hopefully can use this time to convert traditional iras to roth. 2/3 of my current assets are IRAs/HSA. I've had to weigh the benefit of saving additional money via traditional taxable account in taxable account vs saving in IRA that may have to be withdrawn and/or annuitized before I'm 40 years old. The scenarios I modeled indicated it would only be slightly more beneficial to put additional money into non-deductible 401, then in-service withdrawal/convert to roth each year. I thought this would be a great idea at first, but for the work and hassle of having it tied up I concluded it wasn't worth it in my scenario.

Why can you not contribute to a Roth IRA? A "backdoor" contribution allows anyone to contribute. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579375432214126664 Because that doesn't work if you already have a sizeable traditional IRA Balance. You have you convert the whole thing then, or take average pro-rata basis.

Another complication to the matter is choice of roth vs trad 401k. For some people this is further complicated because their choice of roth vs trad affects the remaining funds they have available, reducing the ability to contribute to the other accounts.

I think it really depends on how valid your assumption that you stay with your employer for life is. I don't think that is a valid assumption in most cases. For me and my wife I assume I'll be able to roll out of a 401k at some point; I think most people can make this assumption these days. I would generically allocate funds as follows: 1. Capture 401k Match. 2. Contribute HSA - if you can 3. Contribute Roth IRA - if you can 4. Max out remainder of 401k 17.5k limit. 5. Max out remainder of 401k non-deductible EE contribution limit (total limit 52k), converting to roth each year, if the option is available 6. Taxable account. I personally cant do #3 and choose not to do #5 even though I could, because I want more money in taxable account for ease of access.

why would anyone click on a link that says "ifail" and "april-fools" in the link name and expect it to be legitimate news. I would have a stronger expectation of getting a virus from that link than legitimate news.

It would depend on additional factors for me: -If I generally liked the company -If the company generally "does good" or is "evil" -If the manager who instructed the foreigners to lie generally "does good" or is "evil" Basically is this the first time you've seen foul play at this company and with these people, or is this part of a larger trend. If it was one isolated event I might cut them some slack rather than screw up some peoples lives.