cobafdek

Imagine Buffett had died around the time that article was published. (It would not have been unexpected given all those Cherry Cokes and Dilly Bars.) In 1992, his net worth was approximately $4.4 billion, placing him at #8 on the Forbes list. Had the Lewis article come out after his death, we might have had a dim view of Buffett's overall life. He had been criticized at that time for being a stingy billionaire who made relatively meager pledges to charity. By 2006, it was about $46 billion, and announced the gift to the Gates Foundation. And of course it's still growing -- now $70+ billion. Arguably, decisions made during the Salomon years, and similar ones, allowed the 10-(and greater)-fold size of the charitable gift. So, in 1992, should he have "impaired" his wealth-generating machine by acting more "moral" to satisfy Lewis and us? Philosophers and children are good at coming up with ethical rules that we all agree with. We all talk about behaviors being objectively "good" and "bad," and pretty much think we know what they are, in the abstract. People in real life find out that rules are abstractions, and that there are always trade-offs (benefits and costs), and outcomes and consequences. (My filter for all this is Kurt Vonnegut's lecture on storytelling published in his semi-memoirs "A Man Without A Country." Buffett's story could have ended in 1992. But it didn't. As Vonnegut says, "The truth is, we know so little about life, we don't really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.")

Yes, it's the liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. Not the fine people of Alabama who voted for a pedophile. You know, the Christians with the family values and all. SMH. I don't know what it's like to be you, but it must be sad and tough to go through life taking everything seriously, having no sense of humor! It makes you cognitively blind to see the word "funniest." Sad! It's not your fault! It's probably just the way you're wired. I recall somewhere else your saying you didn't like taking imaginative literature or poetry in high school or college. That would explain your inability to detect subtlety and appreciate figurative language. Many of your responses to my posts on other threads demonstrate this. You're in good company. I've pointed out several other prominent board members who need remedial lessons in Professor Munger's classes. You should review the one where he says, "Invert. Always invert." That would be a first step in understanding how humor is made, even if you can't appreciate it when it's right in front of you. TBF high end humor frequently doesn't travel well via BBS, text & email... Correct! Nor in person live, stand-up live, or video!

Yes, it's the liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. Not the fine people of Alabama who voted for a pedophile. You know, the Christians with the family values and all. SMH. I don't know what it's like to be you, but it must be sad and tough to go through life taking everything seriously, having no sense of humor! It makes you cognitively blind to see the word "funniest." Sad! It's not your fault! It's probably just the way you're wired. I recall somewhere else your saying you didn't like taking imaginative literature or poetry in high school or college. That would explain your inability to detect subtlety and appreciate figurative language. Many of your responses to my posts on other threads demonstrate this. You're in good company. I've pointed out several other prominent board members who need remedial lessons in Professor Munger's classes. You should review the one where he says, "Invert. Always invert." That would be a first step in understanding how humor is made, even if you can't appreciate it when it's right in front of you.

Funniest thing about this election is that this was actually an open question: Which is worse, a child molester or a liberal Democrat? The liberals/leftists have a lot of soul searching to do!

I think you are correct with all of this. Three years ago, I also read Gray and Carlisle's Qualitative Value. Their message based on results of their backtesting corroborates what you're saying. They also show that cherrypicking hurts results. Against Gray and Carlisle are the limitations of backtesting, such as not being able to account for transaction costs, etc. It is also impractical for most small individual investors to invest in all of the hundreds or thousands of stocks that pass the value screen. I think there are professionally run funds that do this, but I haven't looked too hard into these. That's why I decided to cherrypick, and to rationalize my bias by citing Graham, who was also probably just going by his gut when he advised to consider (unspecified) qualitative factors. I admit I chose additional filters because it felt more comfortable. Ultimately, it is subjective.

Thanks for your work and for posting your list. Despite these perennial concerns, I've had a Japanese basket for the past 3+ years. So far, the results are satisfactory or better (>70% total return when counting sells that ran up suddenly). I had no access to 10K type of reports, or any meaningful news reports. Too lazy even to use Google Translate. As you know, Graham in Security Analysis recommended looking for other qualitative factors to filter out stocks that pass an initial net-net screen. For my Japanese basket, I filtered out those that had declining revenue over the past 10-15 years, declining book value, and rapidly increasing shares outstanding. My predetermined sell price was based on reversion to the mean: sell when net-net, book, PE, or free cash flow value approaches or exceeds what was achieved in the prior 10-15 years. It was very simple, possibly too simpleminded. Because of my filter, I'm passing on everything on your list, although I am very tempted. What were your statistical or other filters you used to make you final selections? How have your selections worked out? If the info is handy, I'm specifically interested to hear how stocks you selected that didn't pass my filters worked out. Thanks.

I read this author about 40 years ago, and was surprised he's still around. I spotted him on the History Channel the other day. http://www.daniken.com/en/ He's trying to keep up by being on YouTube, Facebook, and having 40,000 Twitter followers. But all this stuff is eclipsed by--you guessed it--current events. The same cognitive errors are in play, especially confirmation bias. During the Obama administration, the delusions were limited mostly to the fringe conservative news outlets (Obama as Muslim, Kenyan, anti-Christ, etc.) Now it's most of the mainstream media. It's pretty amazing when CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, and Washington Post--not to mention the book on The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by 27 psychiatrists--read like Chariots of the Gods.

Besides the ones on the website, any other sweet potato recipes you recommend? (Recipe links not working.) Thanks!

Cooking is a real science!, unlike economics and business decision making! So I choose dry brining: much more simple and straightforward! Simple and straightforward works in real science! Happy Thanksgiving!

Sorry - I should have linked to this article several days ago, to give time for those who want to try this method. So save it for next year. The best and amazingly easy way to (dry) brine a turkey. I've been doing this since 2008 when the LA Times food writer first reported it, so it's my 10th year. http://beta.latimes.com/la-fo-turkey19-2008nov19-story.html Happy Thanksgiving all!

Five months old but still worth re-reading:

Thanks, Nate. This one (ticker 6149:JP) entered my basket of Japanese net-nets 2 years ago at 633 yen, and is the first one sold, for 1319 yen earlier this week. Before the sale, my collection showed a 9% return since then. During these two years, the dollar/yen has done a round-trip, and there was much hand-wringing on this board when the yen fell 20% in the interim, but as of today, the currency has not been a factor in the stock return. I'm planning at least 2-3 more years of holding on to rest of the basket. I have no explanation for the recent run-up in this stock, and I haven't tried very hard to find it out. Any Japan investors have any good clues?

Here's one: https://globalriskinfo.com/2016/07/31/an-open-letter-to-khizr-khan/

"As an entertainment journalist, I’ve had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president." http://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160

I bet he would be savage I bet he would be savaged. And would he have the candor and the humility of a George McGovern, who was mugged by reality?: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704#:jVWXRsRrTlvMIA Excerpts: "In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business . . . " "I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender. ' "For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs." "In short, "one-size-fits-all" rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels -- e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales -- takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics."

In the doctor's lounge at the hospital, this line could be rephrased as "A patient stalked out of the office today because my front office staff asked for payment. Imagine that: asking for payment at the time of service! Outrageous!" In my office, I don't take Medicare assignment (accept checks from Medicare for medical service rendered). Medicare allows docs a status called non-assignment, where patients pay upfront at the time of service (cash preferred, of course), and the patient is the one who receives direct payment from Medicare. I'm in the minority, whereas most practices charge patients hardly anything, and bill a third-party ("insurance" company or Medicare) for the bulk of the charges. It's one tactic I use to cherry-pick among the patient population. Patients willing to see me despite this billing policy are of a different breed from those who expect someone else to pay for their care. It's also good for the patients, because it keeps me on my best behavior to provide quality service, with no temptation to game the system and charge "whatever the system will bear." (Payment at time of service means cash, check, or card - a bit off-topic, but you get the idea.)

+ 0.8% USD. About 90 stocks. Turned over portfolio about 20% last year, ending the year with 15% cash and approx. equity allocations: USA 45%, Japan 12%, Korea 12%, Hong Kong 10%, Singapore/Malaysia/Australia 10%, Brazil 6%, Europe (France/Greece) 5%.

And it is a terrible decision - wrong, wrong, wrong - to change the portrait on the $10 U.S. note.

How does Fido software work if you have multiple computers? Do you have to install it on every computer you access Fido from? I'd guess you would have to install a separate one on each device you use. For the correct answer, you'd have to call someone in the know at Fidelity. I do not think they have a physical token like E-trade. My wife and I are paranoid enough that we have a dedicated laptop on which we do only financial stuff (banking, credit card, brokerage, etc.) on it, no web-surfing or anything else on it, and no financial stuff on all our other devices.

I've read it twice now. I'd advise all to re-read it also, if only to see if I'm mistaken with the following: Did Marks read the recent CoBF thread "Excellent Interview. 5 Minute Read" and decide to write 14 pages of insightful comments without once using the term "variant perception"?

I use IB also, and I really like the additional security step beyond the username and password. Here are 3 others I know of: Schwab's security token sounds like E-trade's, where I formerly had an account and used their physical token. Vanguard gives an option for account holders to get a single-use 6-digit code texted to one's cellphone. Fidelity - I couldn't find info on their website, but when I inquired about it by phone, a representative set me up with one, where Fidelity uses a virtual token from Verisign they place on your computer desktop. When I log on with my username and password, I get prompted for the 6-digit code which I can see by minimizing the Fidelity page and clicking the Verisign icon. I'm hoping TDAmeritrade will someday offer some similar security step.

cold brew coffee

I think you are correct if BRK's float = cash + short-term fixed-income, some discount should be applied. However, Buffett in his discussion of the two-column method of valuing BRK seems to use the term "float" loosely. In one place, he uses what seems to be the strict definition of float as premiums we have received but don't own yet (reserves and unearned premiums). Indeed, in the balance sheet, loss reserves + unearned premiums = cash + short-term fixed-income. Then he goes on and talks about Investments, defined as = float + retained earnings. I take retained earnings as earned premiums, which formerly was a part of float. Notice that the line item Equity (within Investments) in the balance sheet is sizable, and separate from Cash + Short-term fixed. Some may have the impression that float includes Equity, but strictly speaking it should be termed "formerly float." Definitions are key. So maybe Buffett's loose and ambiguous way of discussing float and "float" is responsible for the confusion and talking-past-one-another in this thread.

I agree. I struggled to read the Aggressive Conservative investor because of his writing style. Although that book definitely has some strong insights in it My favorite is SOTT (Something Off The Top), which makes me think of circumcision, but then I remember it's an investing book. (Would this make Whitman LOL, or ROTFLHAO?)

Ditto for me. I've received books as low as "Used-Very Good" that I would have called "Like New." More off-topic stuff: ordered 3 books for delivery to my nephew in Maryland for his birthday, priced about $50 total. A week later it still hadn't shipped. Sent an e-mail to Customer Service, who put an immediate 1-Day delivery on it, no extra charge, and gave me a $5 credit. In their rush, it appears they got something wrong on the address label, so when the US Postal Service got it to my nephew's doorstep, USPS had to take it back to their distribution center. I had to e-mail Amazon Customer Service again. Profuse apologies from them, gave me an additional $10 credit, and they cancelled my first order and re-issued a replacement order, which finally arrived (about 2 weeks late). Meanwhile, I had contacted USPS via e-mail, they traced the first package and ended up delivering it before the replacement from Amazon. And Amazon told us to keep the extra copies and the $15 credit for future orders. My anecdote confirming Amazon striving to be the most customer-centric company on the planet.