alwaysinvert

I don't know, has any of the bourgeoisie in this thread met and talked to any of the hundreds of thousands of middle-americans who attend Trump's rallies? Seems not. I have witnessed the rise of a populist party in my country and this has happened in pretty much every Western European state. Maybe you are so insular that you don't notice this over there, but the theme is well-established in Europe. This is not a one-off to do with only the unique characteristics of Trump. You just, for once, are about a decade behind us Europeans. And you are making the exact same mistake that we have done in analyzing the situation. It is not about Le Pen. It is not about Farage. It is not about Wilders. It is not about Strache. It is not about Kjaersgaard. It is not about Åkesson. It is not about "charismatic" leaders using their demagogic magic to enchant the public. It is about a ruling class that has tilted more and more in favor of special interests and certain lobby groups at the expense of serving the citizens of the country which they ostensibly are sworn to. At that point, what choice do the voters have? In my country for years and years 60-70% of the voters wanted lower immigration. At the same time 7 of 8 political parties in parliament didn't and actively pushed for higher numbers. Immigration rose every year for over a decade and then finally came to a screeching halt last year during the refugee crisis. Now we have a drag on our economy of 1-2% of GDP yearly despite the voters never asking for any of it. Some accountability. We had 163 000 asylum seekers last year in a country of 10 million people and the voters were firmly against increases when the figure was 1/5 of that. Despite being forced into a 180 by practical circumstances (i.e the imminent downfall of the system) there has been no mea culpa from anyone in charge. That is not a well-functioning democracy. Even if the issues are somewhat different from country to country in the West, the patterns of non-accountability for politicians are the same. That is what the complaints about "globalism" in the US stems from and not, for the majority of people, some resurgence of jingoism. The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature. Trump will probably lose but there will be new challenges to the system if nothing changes. Probably by more competent and polished people, hopefully not by anyone more sinister than a blustering 70 year old TV star with an ego. This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy.

Suggesting that there is only one way to view the world (yours!) would strike most as elitist. I see it as the creepy-clown of arguments. Some people might want to read a book to learn some empathy for people in different situations. I suggest Coming Apart by Charles Murray. Or try this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/

I don't disagree but it's an eminently more solvable problem than spending problems. In that case you have the hole you've worked up to get yourself out of in addition to your mental problems. There are also social problems with stopping spending - i.e the house you live in, what your spouse - that you chose living your old lifestyle - expects from you, your peer group's habits and so on. Not saying it's easy to change your personality whatever the circumstances, mind you.

Sorry for continued OT, maybe someone can break up the thread. I think we all know one or two of these massive tightwads. The extremely grating ones who need to split bills down to decimals or don't tip when appropriate. Of course, exactly where you draw the line for when this gets irritating is personal. I'm pretty frugal myself and maybe I would fall in the tightwad category to some... But at the end of the day, and I've closely known people of both ilks, the cheapskates are way more in control of their lives than their opposites. The wreckage that some of the dumb spenders bring on themselves is akin to alcholism and drugs. Now, some people actually can support big spending and don't ruin their own lives, due to being successful in their careers or at least working long hours. But that comes at the expense at being shackled in the rat race. Personally, I would favor having a choice. Also, think of how the career people you know actually are doing. Don't they drink multiple times a week? Aren't they eating badly? Sleeping too little? Not exercising enough? That's all fine and well for your 20s and 30s (well, most can cope at least) but then that starts building up. And yes, I get the part about needing a BMW to get laid and going out to dinner every weekend and trips 2 times a year. That's stuff you could easily afford and still save lots of money. I'm talking about spending beyond that and first and foremost spending which isn't reflected on. That said, I'm not really fond of MMM and find most of valcont's criticism accurate. Much of it seems to be focusing on minutiae.

How anyone can imagine that the obvious answer to this question unveils some deep truth is truly beyond me.

I mean, objectively she has trapped herself badly. Which fence-sitters are going to actually believe that release at this point? Since they opted for cover-up on multiple occasions now, there is ample reason to actually believe that what is eventually released is just new political spin. They have no leg to stand on against the conspiracy theories and it's all their own fault. She really is in dire straits. This week could feature a trickle of progressively more important democrats voicing the possibility of a replacement. If the first trial balloons take off she could be done for. They really need to get in front of that, but it's hard to see how they will be able to do so effectively. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to promote a replacement too, so some alerted people may panic and undermine her publically in order to force her hand. Interesting times.

That interweb poll isn't worth the paper it is printed on...How do you know one crackpot didn't vote 500 times? Heck, I can run a poll on the interweb and given enough time & $ can come up with almost any result. Perhaps they should have also polled Hillary supporters on the same question. What would the results be? There are semi-famous YouTube videos of late night TV shows going to college campuses, amusement parks, malls, Times Square, etc. and asking people odd/simple questions. The results they get are funny/alarming. People are funny/weird/stupid, especially when asked ?'s by pollsters. This is the same type of thing... I don't know of single Trump supporter who is advocating bringing back slavery. I also don't know a single Hillary supporter who advocates that either. If you read the article, it is all about the framing. They ask about using executive orders, which of course is a partisan issue right now more than ever, and then they ask about Lincoln using an executive order. They essentially trap the respondents; either you are logically inconsistent or we can infer that you endorse slavery (which obviously isn't true either, you could be against slavery but also against the method with which it was abolished... duh). But anyway, it's a great political propaganda piece. Nuance be damned!

I understand the frustration, but this can't be a surprise. The average investor in the Magellan fund under Lynch lost money... The investing public is so fickle and have such different goals and frames of reference that I think we often are blind to it as professionals. I have close friends who have gotten interested in the markets in the past year or so, but do they take tips from me or even listen to any wisdom I might have? No! They aren't in the least bit impressed with my actually very good returns (that also have size drag that they wouldn't have) or the boring companies I invest in. But we have to accept that this is probably at least not only due to their irrationality or fickleness. They actually have a completely different time frame preference. They aren't interested in maybe getting somewhat wealthy in 20 years from eking out 7% CAGR. Few people really are. And even if they are, that takes serious commitment and ability to defer gratification, a description that fits even fewer people. What individual investors often really want is the chance at a moonshot that will make a big difference in their lives, or something they at least can dream about for a while before those dreams are smashed, and to be fair the stock market is no worse a place to be for that than state lotteries.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

Yes, but I can have a broker translate if need be. Ok so you are saying that your native tongue is English and you aren't sure if they speak English but your bringing your broker? wow you must have a ton of stock/money That's not what I'm saying-- the meetings I've got set up are definitely in English. I thought you were asking because you were about to suggest a company whose management only speaks Norwegian or Swedish. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure why you asked the question. Ok got it. I asked the question because maybe one day I will go to sweden to do the same, and I only speak english. I'd be very surprised if there was a problem. They all speak at least passable English and most of them are very used to communicating in English to investors and analysts.

Let me teach you a new word: Dunning-Kruger.

What is your size cut-off? Many interesting companies are based in other cities but I guess you don't have the time to travel all over the place. Here are some more interesting ones in Sweden anyway: Vitec, Kopparbergs, Kabe, Clas Ohlson, Skistar, Bahnhof, Swedish Match, Avanza, eWork, Cloetta. Those are some that interest me from a business perspective. I don't own any of them at the moment, so it's not necessarily a comment on valuation.

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything. If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given. No direct facts but speculation. Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply. Packer Why would you tweet about turning down a meeting with people you don't want support from? Unless you were trying to save face for not actually being invited? He doesn't tweet about every meeting he turns down does he? That should be completely evident for anyone following political discourse with even half an eye. The Koch brothers are basically the devil incarnate to the left of America. Trump is obviously making an appeal to Bernie supporters.

Purely by geography I'd go for Aarhus. Or choose the one with the best male:female ratio, which without checking I'm going to guess is Aarhus too. It's not going to matter much academically, no Scandinavian universities have way more caché than any other. You could maybe argue for Handels (Stockholm) if you are going into business, but that point is moot if you can't get in there anyway. Also, you are probably not going to appreciate the climate in Umeå. If you do well you could always transfer to Lund, Uppsala, Handels etc for your Masters' if the reputation of the school worries you. But I'm telling you: almost no one in Scandinavia cares and even in other European countries no one knows of any Scandinavian universities anyway. For a BA degree there is only Handels which carries a bit more weight, escpecially around Stockholm. Again, I can't stress enough how relatively unimportant the school on your degree really is here compared to say the US. Hope that helps.

Yes, let's draw our conclusions as fast as humanly possible.

So a leftist could stand the most centrist Republicans. I mean come on, where is the big insight in this? Why do leftist people always try and paint their opinions as some kind of objective truth about the world? You spell out your bias and then go directly to claiming universal truths. And making broad, sweeping conclusions about the intelligence of each candidates' voter base, lol. There is maximum a couple of IQ points difference between the average of the two and it most probably will be just about a wash. That's how big numbers work. The only candidate who could claim a genuinely smarter voter base is Gary Johnson and that's precisely because he doesn't have any mass appeal whatsoever. You could never get a niche candidate who only got the dumb vote, for natural reasons. The fact that you actually seriously think that the average Hillary supporter is way smarter than the average Trump supporter speaks loads about either your personal bias or the bias of the media you consume. Or both.

And then of course there are all the meta factors: more stringent rules might mean that you can have more trust in the accounting, it might mean that insiders have a rosy view of the future, it might mean they want to have exposure in order to attract suitors for the company etc etc. All of this is idiosyncratic to each company, though, so it's hard to make blanket statements. It all depends on ownership structure, capital needs and so on. Sometimes the visibility is good for the company's business prospects even though that aspect probably is way oversold.

I think it would seldom be the absolute best option for unlocking of value, but sometimes it is good enough to be desirable. Other times it doesn't really matter or is a small negative in terms of cost. For example I own an OTC traded company which trades by appointment and pretty much always at somewhat big discounts to book. The best solution to this for me would be buyback tenders or maybe an MBO at a good premium. Higher dividends would probably also be superior. But a listing might still yield better annualized results than them doing nothing and me just holding it for 10 years without the gap towards intrinsic value shrinking. If this is in the interest of the majority shareholder, I'm not going to complain about it. But it's not eminently clear which is best of maybe being able to buy more at a cheaper price or having a better chance at getting out of the stock at a higher price/book and/or with smaller spreads. Also, your position could be maxed out portfolio allocation wise, in which case you can't really take advantage of a lower price.

+1 The sugar thing is getting tedious. Ok, let's agree, in excess or maybe at all Coke is bad, there, done! I still wonder about the limited DD, my response to Munger about how limited DD is before marriage, well doesn't living together count? I think his point was that there's no need for a formal due diligence, i.e check birth certificates, because it doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. So a "checking boxes" kind of procedure is a waste of time. It's all in the intangible values, which they think they can get to know better via other methods. Due diligence in its current incarnation is something that has come about because of the principal-agent problem inherent in the usual setup with professional managements. "You won't get fired for doing due diligence". Even if it's a complete waste of time, it's an insurance policy which someone else bears the costs of.

If you are a value investor type and have a future spouse who insists on an expensive wedding then isn't there a very severe mismatch of personalities and life priorities? That seems to be the basic problem here to me, not the actual sums.

You're partly right! That's a very hard thing for people to accept...so you will get push back on this. You can have the right training and that's what Benjamin Graham, Buffett, et al are to investors, but: - You cannot teach or train the right temperament - Or how someone will react to a crisis - You cannot teach patience - You cannot teach someone to think independently if they aren't prone to that type of thinking...thus you get cloning practiced rampantly these days - You cannot teach someone to manage risk, especially if they are prone to a gambling mentality or an overly conservative mentality So alongside a firm, if not enlightened grasp, of how to apply an intelligent framework to evaluating securities, you need a number of other characteristics, including both emotional and intellectual traits. That's hard to find! The solace that all investors have though is that they can hone these skills and become better versions of themselves. So while everyone may not be great, most can be good! Cheers! All those points are key in my experience too. Very well put. I'd add that work ethic isn't really teachable either, it has to come from within. And most people seem to overestimate how much they work, or at least feel productive from doing really low-return tasks.

He's talking about ethics, not accounting. Yea I think you're being overly dramatic here. Bullshit accounting? What? Accounting rules don't change whether you learn it from Tyco University or straight from Munger's mouth. Double-entry bookkeeping is about as good as it gets. GAAP accounting is pretty damn good. The problem is, people will simply lie to steal people's money. That's called ethics and is much more difficult to teach. Actually, if you watch the video, Munger is talking about the accounting profession not following their duty of keeping folly and unethical behavior out. Also, the pervasive nature of this malaise of not allowing honest accounting to take hold (again)in our lifetimes is Munger's observation as well. Both Munger and Bogle are of the opinion that the smartest young minds ending up in the financial industry (versus working on real world problems) is a travesty. There is simply too much folly, make-believe etc in the financial world today that draws too much human talent. For a net societal loss. This was the context of my reference to "bullshit". Perhaps was a bit harsh in referencing GAAP. I get that the double entry accounting is rock solid but that was from the early 1900's. I will spend some time on mastering this. GAAP? Perhaps gain understanding enough of it to see where it does not reflect economic reality accurately. I believe reading BRK's annual reports helps me along the way, Buffett's language there meant for the lay investors (his sister) is good enough. Under GAAP real estate is carried on the books at historical value. Under IFRS you are allowed to mark-to-market. What is the effect on the accounting of real estate companies? Under GAAP book value is often wildly inaccurate. Under IFRS on the other hand, book value is perhaps more accurate but the last line in the income statement is a mirage. Which is the truth? None of them. Both are approximations. And both can be used for nefarious ends. In the GAAP case you could easily see how the true values on the balance sheet could be kept hidden from investors. As for IFRS, the potential for runaway roll-up stories seems decent. GAAP generally does reflect reality fairly, as does IFRS. But they aren't built for the exceptions, which is why things about the accounting in BRK could be off ("real" goodwill of Geico is x as opposed to the y on the books, etc). You can't have rules of thumb that apply every single time. "Bullshit accounting" is not necessarily about incorrect rules but about dishonest intent. In order to spot intent you have to know the rules as taught and practiced.

What is great research? I'm guessing there are a handful of people on this board who are marvellous experts in SHLD but what returns have that earned them? Maybe that's a cheap shot, but there is a lot of navel-gazing research going around and I don't know that it is that great. Turning over a lot of stones and finding simple investments may on the other hand be great. Or just being better at keeping emotions in check, something I guess people have been reminded of the value of these last few weeks. Personally, I think it's a question of identifying key drivers of an investment. If you need thousands of hours to do that in a single name, then maybe either you are a bit thick or you are confused and think your name is Warren and have only 50 companies in the world to choose from, none of which offers the kind of returns we potentially could have.

Like with most things in life the 80-20 rule perfectly applies. 80% of the calls is complete shit. Of the remaining 20%, 80% of the time in them is completely wasted on robotic readthroughs and "what should I plug into the spreadsheet"-questions from analysts. But the remaining 20% is of value. In the interest of time saving, I recommend skimming transcripts with special attention to Q&A for due diligence and listening only for holdings. If tone of voice or hemming and hawing is important in a buy or pass decision you should have already passed. Cheers.

I personally absolutely loathe having to deal with cash, especially coins. We have had a new design on notes for half a year or something and I have yet to hold a new one in my hand. I also only use debit card. Not eligible for credit and I'm not sure I would use a credit card even if I was. Luckily, you can easily get by here using only card for 98% of all transactions. But I do think this reduced used of cash in general could be a very serious democratic and freedom issue. The fact that cash can be used to avoid taxes is actually a good check on government reach and overtaxation. And of course there is the whole surveillance problem.