jjsto

Just thought I would post this interview from 2003. Pretty prescient. Not really investment related though. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1810

thought I would add a quick take by Koo on the subject: http://finance.yahoo.com/video/marketnews-19148628/koo-says-china-very-serious-about-lowering-home-prices-25363160

Anyone have any thoughts on this? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/oy-canada-2/

Not that it has anything to do with picking stocks, or that his macro economic forecast is better than anyone else's, but his quote: "I would guess that that by the—by close to the election of 2012 that unemployment would be probably in the low 7s." is a pretty bold statement... And those gold fondling comments are priceless...

Txlaw, thanks for posting that. That is one of the best videos I have seen on politics in a long time...

That is a nice find. I am including an older youtube presentation from april that seems to cover a similar topic: And, Japan does have some really tough demographic problems in the future. Nevertheless, I think in terms of US policy response, I have started leaning pretty heavily towards a Stiglitz/Krugman/Koo type response. In particular, applying as much of the stimulus as possible toward short term infrastructure repair projects seems like a no-brainer to me.

What do you mean by starting an "investing program?" If you mean "investing your own money" then, IMHO, the CFA exam will not be useful at all. All the CFA exam does is put some letters by your name that will be helpful if you want to work for someone else, or perhaps impress some would-be clients. Reading all the Buffett letters is good. But, if you have already read a "few editions" of the Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis, you should already have the concepts/tools. I think a good way of starting is to pick out a couple of successful value investors, look at all the stocks in their portfolio, and start researching the companies you find interesting. Then, if you find some you understand/like and they seem undervalued (provide a significant margin of safety) based on your independent calculation, buy some shares. It is a bonus if you can buy them cheaper than what the value investor you are following paid. This makes it easier (psychologically) knowing that the investment has already passed through a professional's robust checklist.

Yeah, this quote falls under the general category of what would have happened had Buffett started from the beginning buying great businesses at reasonable prices instead of all this "net-net", cigar-butt stuff. Or, I always wonder what would have happened had he focused on insurance from the beginning. By 1967 he probably understood the insurance industry better than almost anyone in America, he had the capital, and he obviously had a long-term competitive advantage on the re-investment of float side. Not to mention the fact he is an unbelievably disciplined underwriter. In hindsight it would have made much more sense to have purchased an insurance company and used that as the vehicle for expansion instead of a dying textile mill. Unlike Bill Gates, or someone like Zuckerberg, it is very easy to envision a scenario where changing a little here or there, and Buffett would be way richer the second time around, whereas most people had a healthy dose of luck (being in the right place at the right time,) and would probably be significantly poorer.

I own the smaller 6" kindle 2. I love reading books on it. But, not so much pdf files. In my opinion the iPad is far superior for reading pdf files.

Well, I would consider his investment in ACF to be "active." I looked at JOE briefly a long time ago and quickly filed it in the "too complicated" heading. That Einhorn presentation was interesting. It is pretty rare to have two investors using "value" techniques arrive at such divergent conclusions. Even if BB is right that would still be a big red flag for me. At this point it seems like BB's position will either be a "value trap", or take 5+ years to start seeing returns. But, I really have no idea. I much prefer situations where most people agree on an approximate value, but the stock is cheap for other reasons. Just my .02

Yeah, I watched this interview earlier. It was really good. On certain topics Charlie Rose has really improved over time. His interviews with buffett/gates improved a lot over time. In turn, I think that made his business/finance interviews improve as well. Also, his coverage/interviews of the politicians involved in the Middle East peace process is the most informative news source on tv by far. I guess I have become a pretty big fan over the years. It is one of the few news sources on tv that isnt "politicized"...

Well, I think the most important concept here is noting the huge difference a few percentage points just above or below 20% compounded annually will make over a 40+ year time frame. For example, $1,000 @ 22.5% in 45 years becomes $9,249,622 while $1,000 @ 17.5% is only $1,418,090. (The difference between 22.5% and 17.5% is just a little more than the 20% fee.) So, for those of us who are young and therefore have a 40+ year investment horizon each basis point in the average annualized rate is extremely important. It makes little sense to invest over long periods of time with a hedge fund and pay those types of fees.

Just realized there was a question here. Sorry for the delay. As for the country/political risk, I really dont know what to think. I have spent a good deal of time in Argentina, and I have no idea how predict the political environment. On the one hand most of the big elements that have caused past crisis are not present here. There is almost no debt backing real estate, there is no currency peg, and the hot money that could flee the country left a long time ago. There is the issue of inflation/government spending, but that seems mild compared to how it was in the past. The main political problem related to Cresud is the tax on farming, and I have no idea how that will play out in the future. On the other hand, even if the Kirchners were to lose in the next election, the farming taxes were repealed, the foreign debt issue was resolved, and inflation was brought back under control, there would still be the possibility that the argentinians would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and somehow manage to shoot themselves in the foot. In my opinion investors here just have to live with a certain amount of uncertainty. Not very helpful, just my 2 cents...

Assumptions: 1) Modest sales growth (or better) actually occurs this year. All the statements from management that I have seen (articles and filings) point to higher sales this year. So, say 2010 sales conservatively come in +/- $375 mil. 2) Margins are strong enough to produce net earnings of +/- $35 mil. (Of course with all credit for declining costs going to the VEP) 3) There are no recalls, lawsuits, or extraordinary one-time events. (If it wasnt for bad luck...) In this scenario at u$s .75 (year end 2010) you would have a market cap on a fully diluted basis of u$s 428 mil. If you add in outstanding debt that would give an enterprise value of $ 568 mil, more or less. Relative to the (golden) 2003-2004 era when sales were 220-234 range, earnings 25-28, and enterprise value 480-560, it would appear to be relatively cheap even at $.75. Plus, you have the added bonus that management probably wont be aggressively pursuing any type of sizable acquisition any time soon. Instead, they should be back focused on recapturing shelf space and expanding sales, particularly international. Conclusion: At the current .45-.50 range the stock seems moderately attractive. Unless I am missing something? Thoughts? Also, does anyone have any idea how sales breakdown within the toys and/or stationary products segments?

Thanks for the LUK comments at the shareholder meeting. The level of financing at the IRSA/CRESY level is not that bad (at the CRESY level in particular.) I think what LUK was referring to is that their investment was made at the level of IFIS (Elsztain's "shell" company that has the controlling interest in CRESY.) It seemed to me, based on the SEC filings, that IFIS pledged its shares in CRESY as collateral for a loan. At the height of the crisis there was a margin call and Leucadia was forced to loan money to IFIS to cover the margin call until another investor could be found to "buy" them out. That must have infuriated C & S since that was right when they needed the little cash they had left to support ACF and JEF. Unless, I am missing something? Also, the assets in APSA/IRSA are good. (I have been to most of them.) What I have a hard time understanding is: 1) the future prospects of Banco Hipotacrio, 2) What is going on with Tarshop, 3) What is going on at Brasil Agro? As far as management is concerned I dont like the compensation agreement, the fact that they continue to try and invest in US real estate (in spite of their less than stellar history), and the offer they supposedly made to buy out the controlling stake in TEO. But, I still own the stock cause it seems cheap on a sum of the parts basis...