compoundinglife

Well if Google buys them then they would not have that issue anymore :) Otherwise yeah their AWS bill just went way up. Because Netflix can't run an unprofitable business while google can mask it with search earnings? Kinda like MSFT and Bing? I was sort of jokingly implying that if Google launched nation wide Fiber to the home and owned Netflix then it would be much more economical for them to stream high bandwidth to each customer. But it was not mean to be a serious response more of a what if. Considering google fiber is in its infancy its much to early to know what will happen there.

Just went and looked at the website for the first time, didn't realize they have a full HD channel line up as well. Wow.

Well if Google buys them then they would not have that issue anymore :) Otherwise yeah their AWS bill just went way up. Though at the moment Netflix does not need to support that provide a great experience. On the flip side the customer can watch a movie on Netflix at the highest rate they offer today while their children are on skype or someone is downloading Windows Updates at top speed and know one's experience is affected.

A couple of random thoughts, some of which may be repeats of other posts. - Net Neutrality - Big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon want to charge google for access to their customers. It drives them crazy that essentially own all the customers who are going to Google, Facebook etc... Google is monetizing off of these people and they are constantly trying to reduce their rates or come up with more competitive offers. Even if google has mild success with this its a big middle finger to Comcast and Verizon and shows that there is some potential threat to their monopolies. Also my guess is that Google will be able to manage a large scale network like that way more efficiently than Comcast or VZ. I worked a major cell carrier for a while and let me tell you Telcos are not the fastest moving beasts, although they are getting more agile due to competition. Another aspect of Net Neutrality is that the innovation on the Internet has been driven by its open model. Companies like Comcast and Verizon want to control and offer services based on the types of bits you send and receive and also based on whether they are ingress or egress. I can't fault them for it because they are just trying to make money but the fear is that Internet connectivity becomes more like TV, a one may street and people are not encouraged (or in fact discouraged) to create content. Someone with a cool idea for video/audio technology or some teenager experimenting with new software he/she has written might be able to innovate more if they had access to a very fast symmetric internet connection. One of the premises behind net neutrality is common carriage philosophy where you pay for X amount of bits and you get to use those for whatever you like. This is inline with Google's ethos of being "not evil" and keeping the spirit of the Internet intact while also potentially furthering their other business efforts. - Who needs 1G at home? Well at my office I have a 1G ethernet connection to all the servers in my office for access applications copying data I need etc... For the growing mobile work force 1G at home with a VPN to their office would be almost like being there, assuming the company has a beefy internet connection as well. Although I am guessing most companies today could not handle the onslaught of all their employees telecommuting on 1GB pipes. But the demand is there. Ever try to download that excel spreadsheet from your office file server over VPN at the airport? Windows spins and spins and eventually you hit cancel. Most file sharing protocols used in the corporate world would not designed to work over slow links. I would LOVE to have this service at my home. - Other ideas? Well for one thing google gets great analytics on you when you use their applications like search, gmail, desktop search. What if they could gather analytics about all the 1s and 0s going over your internet connection? Has anyone read the EULA for Google Fiber? I haven't but wouldn't be surprised if there is something in there that allows them to non-identifying information. Google is at its heart a data company. Comcast has X1 which appears to be there new cloud based cable box. They basically want you to interact with an app that they host so they can deliver a great cable experience and update the app on the fly. As we know cable box UIs are horrible. Maybe Google want to pilot or build similar things? Much easier to test/pilot with a bunch of 1GB connected customers. Google also has a TON of connectivity but my guess is that most of it outbound serving ads and search requests, if these customers are on Google's fiber maybe Google is letting them use all of their potentially unused download bandwidth?? That would probably give them a big edge over Comcast since they are already paying for all this connectivity and the download portion probably goes unused, but thats just a guess, I have no data to back that up. As others have mentioned having a 1GB connection to google drive basically removes the need to have an at home backup device like an apple time capsule or home NAS. Just random thoughts here.

This is a good example of Google being where the puck is going and Verizon being where the puck is (or used to be). Movies / video, HDTV, Skype, certain telephony applications, cloud storage, etc. all are painful to use at 150 Mbps...a whole lot of buffering going on. Everything works better at higher speeds, and Google is offering this at a price that is hard to argue with. They're offering 3x Comcast speeds at a lower price than Comcast. It is a no-lose proposition for consumers. Most voice and video performs very well at 150 Mbps, the codecs are designed to operate at much lower bandwidth. The killer is latency and dropped packets. Wifi due to the nature of RF often results in unpredictable latency and packet loss as does rate limiting techniques used by some ISPs and network administrators. That being said if this service was offered in Seattle I would order it today.

Ok, sounds like we have eliminated North America and Asia. That narrows it down to: Africa Antartica Australia Europe South America I think we can probably remove Antartica from that list :)

I do not think 10x optimistically rules out BAC over ten years, but you are right that 40x would seem to discredit the idea. Looks like I should bring myself back up-to-speed on CHK. Yeah I think considering he gave it scale of 10-40, I think it rules out BAC. I agree its possible BAC could be a 10 bagger over the next 10 years or longer, but no way 40x. CHK is at an 11B market cap today, a 40 bagger would mean if you owned the whole company and kept all the dividends that your stake would be worth around 440B divs included. It seems hard to believe that even between dividends and spin offs that CHK could generate that much value and the next XOM. So I think I retract my "its got to be CHK". Although I am long CHK so I would be more than happy for this play out :) I don't follow ZINC but is much smaller and appears to be involved in nickel and recycling. Anyone know more about ZINC? I think the assumption is there would be a buyback of significant number of shares. With a 50% buyback, I think CHK even at 40x might be within the realm of possibility. Vinod Good point. That post was pre-coffee, buybacks didn't even cross my mind. I still think 40X is a tad high but I agree that puts in the realm of possibility. I have watched CHK since I started investing in 2008 and initiated a position a few weeks ago. I feel the changes at the board level, actions to reduce debt are all steps in the right direction.

I do not think 10x optimistically rules out BAC over ten years, but you are right that 40x would seem to discredit the idea. Looks like I should bring myself back up-to-speed on CHK. Yeah I think considering he gave it scale of 10-40, I think it rules out BAC. I agree its possible BAC could be a 10 bagger over the next 10 years or longer, but no way 40x. CHK is at an 11B market cap today, a 40 bagger would mean if you owned the whole company and kept all the dividends that your stake would be worth around 440B divs included. It seems hard to believe that even between dividends and spin offs that CHK could generate that much value and the next XOM. So I think I retract my "its got to be CHK". Although I am long CHK so I would be more than happy for this play out :) I don't follow ZINC but is much smaller and appears to be involved in nickel and recycling. Anyone know more about ZINC?

10x to 40x would rule out BAC, C, GM, GS. It would have to be CHK or ZINC. My guess is CHK but I have no idea about ZINC. 1. It's an unbelievable manager (CHK meets this requirement, Aubrey would qualify) 2. in a very misunderstood industry (CHK likely meets this requirement as well, Shale/O&G misunderstood?) 3. with just a wide disparity on valuations and (CHK meets this requirement, Gas prices between US and Rest of the world) 4. a lot of tailwinds that are very positive (CHK meets this requirement, Conversion to natural gas as fuel?) Vinod I agree, if its listed in the filings then its got to be CHK.

Mentioned in the MCF thread, but MCF is distributing a $2 special. ALX is doing $122 per share special about 27 percent of the the current per share price.

Quite a crazy story, been following it on Gigaom. My favorite part of that interview:

Ah did not know that about the accounting. I assumed the prefs had a cost basis of par and the warrants would have a cost basis of the BS value at time of issue. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yup, poor choice of words on my part. I should have said out of the money not "under water". Hard to be under water on a deal kicker.

Found a reference for the statement on the GS warrants: http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/07/07/warren-buffett-to-exercise-5b-goldman-sachs-warrants-in-2013/

Can't speak for the accounting, I would assume black & sholes would be used, I think that is what is used for the index puts. From what I remember WEB has said he would exercise the GS warrants sometime in 2013 a few months before expiration. AFAIK the GE ones are still under water right? I thought they were 25 strike. I don't know if he has commented on the BAC warrants.

benefiting from the great short makes him a great manager. he was one of the very few to not only see it coming but to make himself a billionaire because of it. cheers! To me that says "lucky" rather than great. Kraven, I agree with your thoughts and analogy. he became a billionaire because he thought of an idea and executed perfectly on it. i call that being "good". I call inheriting a billion being lucky. cheers! He also was a competent, successful money manager before striking gold. double cheers! It's hard to disagree obviously about someone who became a billionaire doing anything. We do seem to have different definitions though on what "good" means. To me it entails a level of performance that is sustainable. He is a bit of a one hit wonder. Doesn't mean his other music wasn't good, but people weren't buying it. I agree with what you said that he was a "competent, successful money manager". If that is "good", I agree with that. I would disagree that he thought of the idea. That is factually incorrect. Paolo Pelligrini brought him the idea. He was smart enough to direct Pelligrini to execute on it and had the fortitude to stick with it. Been a while since I read the book, but from what I remember the author portrayed it as though Paulson never really let Pelligrini share any of the glory for the trade which was an idea he presented to Paulson, he tried to convince Paulson to take some money off the table when the trade went their way and Paulson refused. But it also does point out that Pelligrini was basically at rock bottom, broke, in debt and had no luck getting a job. Paulson took him in and gave him a chance to get back on this feet. My take away from the book was that Paulson had some serious balls to take the trade to the level that he did, but it seemed like he let his emotions and ego get the best of him. In this case it worked out in his favor but I think the way in which he managed his partners capital was reckless and IMO he should of started winding down the trade much earlier than he did. That opinion is based only on reading the book, so maybe the reality of what actually happened was different.

Smart, but isn't it a little alarming that the FBI can access Google search terms? The FBI accessing google's data is one way. However that is not the only way to find this information. If you search for "Helen Fuchs Art", the first site that comes up is in google is a page on askart.com, when you click on the search result it sends a "header" along with your request that tells the askart.com's owner where the browser came from (google) and what search term they used to find it. You could directly contact the websites on the first page of results and ask them if would be willing to provide information for vistors who were directed to their site searching for the artists name. That is what I would do if I were looking for this information. Chances are when you explain you case to the website owners they would probably be willing to help. Didn't know Gundlach was posting on this forum… Glad you got your art back! I am not he. I couldn't stand to see that much capital tied up in art. But that is how I would approach the problem if in a similar situation.

Not sure how or if this could play out regulation wise. But at the time of the BNSF purchase I was trying to think of non-obvious or off the wall reasons why BRK would want to buy them. Clearly there is the fixed income like nature of this company but what is the kicker? Only thing I could think was that in the future there might be some synergy between BRK's utility companies and BNSF. For example if there is a way to efficiently move power over long distances, maybe Mid Am. can utilize the rail roads tracks or land around the tracks to do so?

Smart, but isn't it a little alarming that the FBI can access Google search terms? The FBI accessing google's data is one way. However that is not the only way to find this information. If you search for "Helen Fuchs Art", the first site that comes up is in google is a page on askart.com, when you click on the search result it sends a "header" along with your request that tells the askart.com's owner where the browser came from (google) and what search term they used to find it. You could directly contact the websites on the first page of results and ask them if would be willing to provide information for vistors who were directed to their site searching for the artists name. That is what I would do if I were looking for this information. Chances are when you explain you case to the website owners they would probably be willing to help.

I bought FRFHF today and the cheapest I got was 348.30. According to Google finance volume for FRFHF was around 1/2 million and volume for FFH on the TSE was around 1 million. Unfortunately the account I had $ in was not one of the accounts I can buy TSE stock in otherwise I probably could of got them cheaper.

Yup. Makes me wish I had sold my $30 shares when they hit $80 so I could buy even more now. Been doing some buying under $50 over the past week. Whenever I listen to analysts and media it just reinforces in my mind how misunderstood this stock is.

Ultimately it depends IMO on how leveraged you are. If we were to end up in a repeat of 2008/2009 tomorrow, you were to loose your source of income or something else bad happens would you be at risk of blowing up?

In the Univ. of Florida MBA talk he mentioned this. He was referring to the fact that they were a group of people who were insanely intelligent, with tons of experience in securities and they put the majority of their net worth into their own highly leveraged fund and blew up. "If I ever write a book its going to be called Why Smart People Do Stupid Things, my partner says it should be autobiographical". "To make money they didn't have and didn't need they risked what did they have and did need and that is foolish".

valueInv you seem to have messed up the quoting. Kind of fogging up who said what, not a big deal but it kind looks like I said Rails was a hot new language, which I did not. Yes Rails is a framework which I said in the post you are responding to. Yes node.js is gaining in popularity. My point with bringing up Scala (and why I did not bring up node.js) is that ItsAValueTrap had commented on how dealing with things like parallelism are hard and IMO Scala is an example of trying to make that easier for developers to deal with hence increasing the likely hood that things can be parallelized with out the developers having to deal with things like locking and threads. On a slightly different note... Gents, I am going to bail on this thread now. While the software/cloud discussion has been fun I feel like we have gone off the rails (no pun intended!) a bit and would like to keep my time on this board more focused on investing. Not saying there is no relationship between the two, but I talk quite a bit about software at work (and write software too) and would like to try and focus my forum time on things I don't get to do other places. It has been a great conversation though. See you on Dell thread in the Investment Idea section and good luck to all. ValueInv sorry I never got a chance to comment on Dell and how they will handle competition from Oracle and IBM, maybe later.