alwaysinvert

The problem is to even find any single one who actually is worth 2/20, which is a mind-boggingly huge fee. I think there is a good chance that you are beeing fooled by randomness.

That effect is lost if you practise social egalitarianism, and ambition and hard work, for the most part, get replaced by extremism, separatism and social unrest (if you haven't experienced these problems in a big way yet, you need only take a look at the ghetto suburbs of France where curfews are not uncommon or Muslim communities in Britain who are demanding Sharia laws etc). I take it your ancestors had to depend on themselves and their own ability, and thus did not get stuck in entitlement thinking. I don't think an immigration policy designed to be charitable is advisable. I'd like to see completely opened boarders, though.

Wow, what a shoddy logic. Absolutely astonished. 1. "Successful" is measured by what standards? By the standards of existing countries in the world, of which a great majority have used tariffs. 2. If everybody uses infant industry protection, of course there are going to be a distribution of outcomes, of which the best will be labeled "successful" And the comparisons between Asian countries and Latinamerica without accounting for differences in corruption levels, black markets, how well private ownership actually is protected etc are just plain meaningless. Says absolutely nothing about free trade vs protectionism. Without at least trying to isolate cause and effect in an honest way this is just bullshit politics. His empirical argument is worth absolutely zero, zip and nada. Why not compare with Chile instead of Mexico? Oh right...

Too many EU countries (the UK and Germany excepted!) have citizens who seem to think that they can get something for nothing. The people protesting budget cuts in Greece and the folks protesting the need to increase the retirement age in France seem to be living in some parallel universe where GDP and tax dollars just magically appear to make everybody's life better at the cost of nobody. There seems to be a complete inability to have an "adult conversation" within the countries about the options that are realistically available to them. The protests in France are the biggest joke in Europe. The choices about public pensions are relatively straightforward. You can reduce monthly benefits, increase the contributory period, or increase tax rates. It's really quite simple....just choose one of those options. The population went ballistic when the government increased the contributory period, yet I did not see a single placard from protesters asking to instead reduce the monthly stipend, or to increase taxes (at best, the intelligencia would have recommended a tax increase for a mysterious, mythical group known as "the rich"). The response was a series of immature protests like a bunch of petulant children. I am very happy to not be sharing a currency union with countries like that. Canada took its bad medicine in the 1990s, and I am optimistic that the US will eventually come around. But those Mediterranean countries just don't seem emotionally equipped to do what is necessary. Too bad. SJ Although I totally agree with you, I really don't see what's materially different in the US at this point in time. Still holding on to auto manufacturing and whatnot. Maybe the attitude is different in Canada/Australia and most certainly in China and the Asian tigers, but the US seems to have the same problems of feelings of entitlement as most of Europe. At least the winds seems to be blowing in different directions in Scandinavia at the moment, with people finally coming around to realising that production and work is necessary to uphold certain standards of living, but that may be me excercising wishful thinking. Regarding Kinnevik, the reason why they are traded at a discount is that the legendary leader of the company, Jan Stenbeck, died a couple of years ago. He transformed the company from an industrial profile (steel and papers) to a huge media and telecom conglomerate. There is still a long term question mark regarding his daughter's ability to steer the company. I think their holdings are hard to analyse, but at least Millicom is a giant cash flow cow. MTG has an awesome market position in Scandinavia and is expanding in the east, but broadcasting businesses is not something I am very comfortable in valuing yet. I have glanced a little at Kinnevik and compared to the rest of the market it seems decently priced.

Two other Swedish large caps, apart from H&M: Svenska Handelsbanken - One of the largest Swedish Banks, not exposed to the credit troubles in Eastern Europe, very cautious bank without any incentive programmes for management whatsoever. Made it through both 2008 and the collapse of the Swedish Krona in 1991 pretty much unscathed, while all competitors leaned on the government for support (and/or went bankrupt or merged/got sold off). Allegedly the best stock in the history of the world with a rise of 1.9 million percent since 1900 (excluding dividends, which have been in the high-end spectrum). Credit losses are extremely low. Were scaling back during the boom years when the other banks went haywire, mostly in Eastern Europe with loans without any security, and then started expanding rapidly when the economy struck great blows against the other banks. Swedish Match - Completely dominates the Swedish market for snus (moist powder tobacco) with an 85% market share and the Norwegian with a 60% market share, if I remember correctly. Also big on the US market with snuff, snus, chewing tobacco and cigars. They are refocusing on their core business (smokefree tobacco) and selling off the other parts. Huge buyback programme, and dividends at about 2%. Has historically performed amazingly as well, with their huge margins and near-monopoly position.

with no additional charge for bringing forward the repayment date Would be very amusing if Buffett managed to get extra fees because he got paid too early :D

That's a very skewed interpretation. Both in the Snowball and in numerous interviews she goes on and on about the duo's brilliance, ability and honesty, although what differs (from the mindless cheering consensus) is she adds a little colour to the picture by pointing out her perceived flaws (be they right or wrong). I'd hardly say that's a 0 rating. I don't think she is particularly amplifying the negatives, that impression is just a function of her being very alone in bringing some nuance. And I can see how some people would view Charlie as an unempathic holier-than-thou type of guy just because he doesn't speak in euphemisms. I don't agree with the people who holds that view, but I can see where they come from.

http://www.amazon.com/Warren-Buffett-Art-Stock-Arbitrage/dp/1439198829/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288833793&sr=8-1 New Buffett book upcoming (as if we needed another one). This one has an interesting and different angle, though. Maybe it can shed some light on Buffett's special sitauation investing. I haven't read anything by the author since I always assumed she was merely using her surname to make a quick buck, but it will be interesting to see some reviews of this book. Please share your thoughts on it here if you happen to read it!

If you look at my performance since I starting saving/investing in july 2008, I am +66% from net inflow on my broker's account compared to my benchmark index at +27%. This although I only bought index and mutual funds for about the first 4-5 months, and only later changed to a value approach. I owned funds for the most part until the summer of 09. Also 2/3 of my capital influx came only after the lows of the spring of 09, and 1/3 as late as this year. So yes, considering that I'm still very much a newbie and was not fully invested all the way through, I'm extremely happy. Even though the comparence gives huge room for statistical flukes because of the time span. I wouldn't like to think of the opportunity cost of me not reading Peter Lynch and Ben Graham 6 months earlier. On the other hand maybe investing wouldn't have caught my attention as well without the events of september 08 to go with. edit: and if this was too much information, I apologise ;)

It's easy enough to imagine a poorer Buffett too. Buffalo news and Salomon come to mind.

Yes, that would be ideal for overview purposes. The forum wouldn't get cluttered with several different news threads on the same companies and you would not be forced to search/browse the whole board for the information you are looking for.

I am sorry for my attack on a certain poster in the other thread, but I was a bit tired of seeing potentially interesting threads constantly go astray into meaningless banter. I like this initiative. May I also propose splitting the general discussion subforum into macro discussions and company specific discussion to prevent threads from derailing into macro discussions (which seems to happen more often than necessary)?

I sometimes use the Kelly formula as part of my last check-up round partnered with a dcf calculation, naturally with conservative input. If they don't give me numbers to drool over, I know that I have deluded myself somewhere along the line and been blinded by my own enthusiasm. In making percentage allocation decisions it's pretty worthless, though.

Great, thanks. Should be a good read. Fun fact: I live only 1.5h away from the first IKEA store, and visit it quite regularly. Even though I, as a young male find it a huge bore (:P) to spend a day at IKEA, it is a truly marvellous business and no wonder that Buffett has been rumoured to be interested for many years.

Value guys from different folds have been going on about Nokia for quite a while now. This far there hasn't been any money to be made (on the contrary). Personally, I think they fall on one of the first hurdles and that is predictability of earnings. Same problem as Apple, and as opposed to them they don't have pricing power or as strong a brand. I wouldn't care for them as long as they are traded substanitally above their own capital. Their market is still highly competitive and fast changing, and I don't see a good reason as to why they are the low-cost producer in 5, 10 or 20 years.

Surely, benchmarking against the S&P 500 is highly inadequate since the Swedish stock market has performed alot better than the American lately? 10 year graph versus OMXSPI tells a whole other story. http://img837.imageshack.us/f/investor.jpg In my view they are no better than closet index funds, which their core holdings coupled with their track record confirms.

Faulty logic. Should one not care about the disadvantaged kids in the suburbs because of the starving children in Africa? Not punish robberies until every murderer is jailed? Not cure people with the flu until the ones with brain tumours have been tended to? And no one should report on the crimes of any other dictators than Stalin and Hitler. Of course, she is going to write about Buffett and Berkshire; it's her area of expertise. Likewise the general practicioner prescribes antibiotics and the surgeon performs surgery.

It's just such a silly position to have to always whine about a critic who doesn't mention all the positives every single time they criticize something. C'mon you people.

Investor is a really bad example, since they are hardly even actively managing their portfolio. Even if you would argue that they do, they are still overpaying their corrupt executives for making the "active" decision of holding on to companies of which they have been the majority shareholder for decades. I'm actually quite disgusted by Investor and the Wallenberg heirs.

Going to write a bit about me, even though I don't post nearly as much as I'd like to. I am an avid golfer (hcp 4), though winters in cold Sweden are too long to get enough consistency in my game. Hopefully I'll have a house in Spain in 15 years or so :) I also play football (soccer, that is, although I enjoy watching NFL) and am a huge Man Utd fan, who barely misses any games at all. I guess I'm one of very few non-North Americans on the board. I have had a huge interest in poker (played professionally for the last 3 years, since I finished high school) which is now fading since I've gotten more and more into investing. Due to my investments having limited value to you (100% Stockholm OMX at the moment) I mostly lurk the forums. Always great food for thought, though.

Ok, fair enough. Seems you are fairly confident in making macro calls/guesses in situations that I don't have a clue what to make of (I am a huge beginner compared to you, as well). To each his own :)

I really don't see the big point in having mostly cash in your portfolio if the market is not monstrously overvalued (in an almost unheard of way; think 1929 or 1999 or maybe even worse). Even if there aren't big values out there today I don't see the point in selling off good companies at times like these. Doesn't most of our percieved edge lie in taking part of the cash flows of well-run companies over time, anyway? Not even hard-necked deep value guys like Walter Schloss went that much cash is king in very bullish times from what I have heard.

Not necessarily. In the 1970's BRK sometimes sold way below BV and for an even greater discount to IV, yet WEB didn't buy back shares even though that was the ideal time to repurchase. Why? Because other great companies were selling for even greater discounts to IV! Most companies do not and should not operate that way, though. I wouldn't like to see a random retailer or whatever company that I own go on an acquisition spree just because valuations were low.

I think it's an industry with far too bad ROIC. I can see no possible moats, either. Too hard for me, I sort it in the same pile as the textile business (the brk example).

He has such a good point on the inflexibility of the educational systems of the welfare states of Europe. Also my impression of the US and to some extent the UK is that you guys have a far deeper appreciation for the ambititious and intelligent than Europeans in general. You realise the importance of fostering the innovators and thinkers, while our focus always is to prop up the weak links no matter the cost. In educational terms this translates to a goal of having all students at basically the same level if possible; no one far ahead and no one behind. In an economic sense this way of thinking is a pure disaster and will continue to hurt our growth prospects.