watsa_is_a_randian_hero

yadayada- i seemed to remember english wasn't your first language but wasn't certain. I was terrible at foreign language coursework and admire those who excel at language. No disrespect was meant; I misspell words all the time, and would not even be able to string together a coherent sentence in a foreign language. I was merely pointing out the irony of that particular misspelling. I do agree with you though in general some sort of tool to help a reader sort through the large volume of posts would be valuable.

"alot of smart people"...we all make spelling errors, but that one had some irony to it that I couldn't help point out. My thoughts a easy system that would allow a reader to sort through the increasingly high volume of posts: 1. some sort of peer rating ability on posts would be great. 2. it would be even better if the average rating (or count of high ratings) of posters were maintained 3. it would be even better if their were some type of feedback loop, where in the rating of any given post, the ratings provided by posters who themselves have a high count of high-rated posts, or a high average post rating, are more heavily weighted. A few people have voiced similar opinions, but others have voiced the opinions "all posts and posters are equal" and "Parsad is doing the best he can" (which is true). I believe the last time one of these threads started one individual made a fairly large donation to Parsad and challenged others to do the same. I must confess I never donated anything, though if a reasonable fee were to be charged to all readers I would be willing to pay. edited to fix formatting of auto-numbering

I have known of a lot of relatively shady envelope-pushing practices in HFT, but always "shrugged" and thought it is better than the alternative of trading 50 years ago without reg FD and via phone. My first reaction was similar to some of those here: it affects me a minimal amount because I trade infrequently and I use limit orders, and my size is relatively small. I think for those that use limit orders, the effect is in a lower likelihood of a fill on your order. Also, even if the cost of this amounts to almost nothing, almost nothing is still something, and a small something multiplied by the size of the US Market is a lot.

you guys are taking this too seriously

I own a small position in SIPEF (Société Internationale de Plantations et de Finance). I've owned it for a couple years now. It has underperformed my original projections due to price declines in the palm oil prices because of supply/demand. I still own it though, I bought it as a long-term inflation hedge, because it was priced cheap relative to its peers, and it has a good track record. It was written up in Grants Interest Rate observer back in 2012, thats where I originally heard about it.

Can a Woman make you a Millionaire??? Yes, but only if you are a billionaire. I saw this circulating on facebook the other day and though it was funny and this crowd would appreciate...apologies to those who find it sexist. I did some googling and it is originally derived from a Charlie Chaplin quote: "A woman can make any man a millionaire, if he is a billionaire" - Charlie Chaplin happy [early] april fools

When you put it that way, I sound like an embarrassment (lol)! To be honest though, I don't consider my lifestyle extravagant. My wife and I rent a 2 bedroom apartment in Chicago. We own 1 car, a 2010 toyota corolla. You say 'wining and dining,' but I'm really just meeting friends and family over a meal, and I happen to have a large circle of friends, and a large family and in-laws. Generally I'll meet people at a restaurant they want to go to, and so the price range is more dictated by their preferences. And generally we go dutch (as warren did). I agree I would not want to put money with someone who lived a wasteful lifestyle. I also prefer the hiking boots (I noted I'm heading to tetons/yellowstone this summer!), lol edit: also, my clients dont and will never "finance my lifestyle" as suggested. I've been fortunate enough to have a well-paying full time job (as does my wife) and past market success. If/when I do start full-time asset management, I will have enough in saving to live off my savings exclusively. Any income from my business would be gravy.

thank you. perhaps I didn't do the best job of explaining myself at first or my choice of words may have been poor. Also, Buffett constantly downplays his skills...so his own quotes on the matter are not reliable. Though he is quoted as saying his Carnegie course diploma hangs in his office (and is the only diploma in his office) because "it changed my life." I think he is also quoted as saying How to Win Friends and Influence People was the 2nd most influential book in his life (next to Intelligent Investor).

Back to the original thread topic, I was thinking about this minimalist thread more, I realized a lot of the money spending in my 122k annual budget (as disclosed earlier) I have I would consider "self marketing" -frequently dining out with a wide range of friends/family (who also happen to be current or future potential clients). It is rare I am not out with various groups of friends/family at restaurants or bars multiple times a week. This is expensive. -having a modest, but well furnished apartment in Chicago that you can host functions (again for friends/family, who also happen to be current or future potential clients) at is not cheap -We travel on average at least once a month. Typically weekend trips. 95% of the travel we do are either visits to out-of-state family or vacations we take we go on with friends/family (again, who also happen to be current or future potential clients). this is expensive. -nice tailored clothes to look presentable/professional at all times I try to keep expenses as low as possible and be as frugal as possible, but at the end of the day it is expensive to have a lifestyle involving frequently meeting with friends/family. Yes, I could lead a cheaper lifestyle, but it would be difficult then to maintain as wide of a social network of friends/family (again, who also happen to be current or future potential clients). edit: if ones goal is to manage money for others (as it is mine and I'm sure many others' on this board), this makes it "self-marketing" even more expensive because your clients and potential clients, by definition, tend to be wealthy and wealthy people tend to have more expensive tastes. ie...nicer restaurants, wines with dinner, more extravagant vacations. We went on a ski trip in Feb with some friends, we're going to Tetons/Yellowstone this summer with family; that stuff is not cheap. "Fitting in" and engaging in the activities and lifestyle of your current/potential clients can be very expensive if you work in finance.

I don't think anyone's saying that he doesn't have tremendous social skills. I'm just saying he didn't start out that way, unlike many others who are just natural social animals. I agree he didn't start out that way...all I'm saying was that his learning/getting more comfortable with that contributed tremendously to his success. but just to be clear as we kind of went on a tangent...I am not suggesting scott or anyone else needs to be more social or conformist...to each his or her own. All I'm saying is that for those that have a goal of maximizing net worth/professional success can most likely improve their chances by conforming somewhat to societal norms in order to make it easier for other people to relate to you in order to make it easier for you to network/exchange ideas/get deals down or whatever else your profession involves. +1 to what parsad said

If you read his bios and listen to his interviews, you'll learn that he literally vomited from public speaking at first, that during social events he would go in another room and read annual reports, etc. He got over all that over time (Carnegie, Kay Graham), but that's certainly not where he started, not his natural inclination. I think he say that it could be a useful tool for him so he set out to consciously acquire those skills. I've read that as well...I think it was mentioned in Snowball. But I believe Snowball also highlighted that him "getting over it over time" (as you say) was instrumental in his success. Also, there is a difference between public speaking fears and having good social skills. The skillset of getting your foot in the door to interview management, or meeting/exchanging ideas with other investors such as Munger (which was only one of many he did this with) is a different skillset than public speaking.

He started with friend/family money, but then expanded. 600mm aum - but aum size doesn't dictate the size of the companies you invest in your idea of a networker as someone at the bar at a conference handing out business cards is my idea of a sh*tty salesperson. maybe our difference of opinion lies in a difference in our definitions of "networker" Its myth that he got to where he is now based purely on book smarts and researching stocks like a recluse. He exchanged investor ideas, recruited partners/clients AUM, got access to company management (which is no easy thing), orchestrated deal-making. People downplay his networking skills (or social skills, if you'd prefer that term) as a role in his success...I'm not sure why. The guy deserves credit for it.

This is a misnomer on buffett. As mentioned in my last post, I believe he would not have been anywhere near as successful had he not been an uber-networker. You say "he got by fine at first in small cap land"...but that is not true. He made his millions managing Buffett Partnerships, outside money for dozens of other clients that he earned performance fees on. If he were only compounding his own money and never managed outside money and never exchanged ideas with other investors and never started buying entire businesses (dealmaking as opposed to stockpicking takes social skills/networking) he would have done well for himself, but he would have never been a billionaire.

That's a different topic, but an interesting one. I think it depends. Was Buffett advantaged or disadvantaged by having such a different lifestyle from most other money managers? By staying in Omaha rather than going to Wall Street, etc, some could say he wasn't networking properly and wasn't plugged in the "deal flow" or whatever, but others could say he was avoiding the echo chamber and groupthink and reducing pressure of activity for activity's sake. Later in life he got pretty social thanks mostly to Kay Graham, but in his early decades he was a lot more awkward and isolated, and definitely had a very frugal lifestyle for a billionaire (buying hail-damaged used cars, never moving to a bigger house, not eating anything fancy, etc). I think Michael Burry is also a pretty unusual person, and that seemed to have helped him see things differently and do things that others couldn't be bothered to do. In the end, if you're good at what you do, have integrity and other virtues, people will overlook almost anything. And those who don't, you probably don't care about them anyway... I almost envy Scott, I know that my investing would probably improve if I didn't spend so much time thinking about sex... Warren Buffett I think was an uber-networker. He was very social, and even took Dale Carnegie classes. He regularly exchanged ideas with other investors, and did live in NYC working for Ben Graham for a bit. I think Warren Buffett would not have been nearly as successful if it were not for this.

Most people, sure. But I thought this was a forum of intelligent free-thinkers who "don't follow the crowd". Surely it can't be that big a surprise that there are asexuals and people not much interested in material things out there? Live and let live, I say. Definitely, to each his or her own, and I'm not passing judgment. This is a forum that has a lot of free-thinkers and contrarians...but also a lot of people who strive to maximize their personal net worth and professional success. I would argue that for most people, networking will add to this success, and that for most people, networking would be more easily achieved by not creating an unsettling impression. I would argue that to a degree, conforming to societal standards and expectations would be beneficial if one's goals involve maximizing net worth and professional success. However, like I said, I'm not passing judgment and to each his or her own (Can you tell I'm a libertarian?)

Seriously? That excludes investment account balance at TDA? My current employer is using hsabank, so I bet they pay the $3 per month admin fee. But if I leave my current employer, I would definitely transfer to another place that doesn't nickle and dime me. I like HSA Bank. You can write a check to pay the investment fee with non-account funds (which is tax deductible). I find the $3/month fees to be relatively low. I keep a minimal amount in the HSA bank account ($50 or so to pay fees) and most of my balance over at TD. HSA bank is a business, they have to make money somehow. $3/month for record keeping/custodial services and the ability to link a TD account and buy individual stocks is a good deal I think. That said, I didn't open an HSA Bank account until the fee would be less than 1% of my balance; before that I kept the money over at a zero-fee Chase HSA account sponsored by my employer. Now I have almost $20k in mine and $5k in my wife's, so the fees at HSA Bank as a percentage are not punitive. I transfer money over from my employer-sponsored Chase account every so often once the balance builds up. Unfortunately my wife's new employer doesn't offer her an HSA option.

I think that most people find the idea of a person who doesn't have any sexual interests (in men or women) and lives in an empty apartment unsettling because most people cannot relate to a person like that, and people are afraid of what they don't understand. BTW, my annual budget for my wife and I is about $122k. It would be difficult for me to change my lifestyle to bring that under 100k. I have a wife (no kids) and live in a city, so my costs are higher than others. stahleyp - don't take this the wrong way, but I think it is calculative "cheating" to not count the true cost of things like housing or car payment. Just because you don't have a payment doesn't mean there is zero cost to owning. Depreciation and opportunity costs are real costs. I don't have a car payment but I include the depreciation cost in my annual budget.

Nordstrom TrueFit

How does that help your sex life?

all i can add to what was previously mentioned is http://www.valuebuddies.com/ -- focused exclusively on Singapore, HK and (to a lesser extent) US stocks.

one more quick question Nate - I realize the strikes would be adj for special dividends, but what do you think happens for the regular dividend after REIT conversion?

Is this written up somewhere? If not do you mind giving a brief?

ATW to me appears to be something that should be a 2x-5x over the next 5 years or so.

A stock similar in some regards I wrote up is Triyards: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/rc5-triyards-holdings-ltd/

I got lucky that a friend told me to check out Conrads because he knew I had invested in many similar-themed stocks in the past: small, tightly controlled (possibly founding family), owner operator, cheap, businesses with long track records of success. At the time I looked into Conrads It was 2x earnings after backing out cash, and fit the aforementioned bill for the type of businesses I like.