Kiltacular

+1 Good insights -- thanks.

+1.... Well told and something to remember for next time.

I've come back to this thread. As someone with a young child, I'm going to have to deal with a lot of what was discussed here (and, maybe, in the thread about retail) in the coming years. I was raised in a family that (over) prized academic outcomes versus both general sports results and "learning" and doing what you love. I won't say it failed for me. But, I didn't enjoy it. I was pretty good at sports and didn't mind losing. I liked teams much better than individual (I think for the right reasons). In any case, that was not prized in my family. I did well in school but I'd say I never figured out what I really enjoyed as the goal (the edict from above) was to get the grade. I didn't like to lose but I don't think I was a sore loser. The quote of me from above had to do, in my mind, not with Buffett (or yours truly) wanting to beat Michael Jordan. I feel the quote assumes you can't beat Michael Jordan (that's why he's a useful example) -- it's not about him, per se, but about something you might want to play (or do) but are facing a situation where you cannot win and would prefer not to simply be a lamb leading himself to slaughter but rather to fight on and try to win in another way or at another point in time. I agree with what rkbabang wrote in the rest of the missive. This is a succinct way of getting across the idea of "never giving up." In fact, eventually, you do often have to give up (or lose) but before that you will have achieved what Emerson thinks is useful about a hard-earned loss. It does make sense to play those games even if losing is certain. It might make sense to reward kids for participating in these situations. Some kids get better but won't if they give up because there are no rewards. I guess what I'm asking is: How do other fathers of young children feel on these matters -- both sports and academic? I know the way it was done when I was a child and I don't think much of that method. But perhaps I'm too quick to throw it away without some education on the alternatives. What do others feel they "should" do irrespective of what they (may) hope their child achieves? Or, are those things always aligned for most of you? I simply want my kid to figure out what he likes and pursue it. But, I don't want a sore loser or someone who quits before they have a chance to figure out whether they might like the activity. Thoughts appreciated but none expected :) -- Note: Edited for clarity

+1...he was awesome

Thanks Ericopoly and smreitz

I would appreciate color from anyone with more knowledge of the above. Does anyone have experience doing this? If there aren't specific standards set from the IRS, I'd be interested in comments from anyone who does this. Do states with income taxes go with the IRS?

"I think you have to try and fail, because failure gets you closer to what you're good at." Louis C. K. :) Seriously, though, it is healthy to hate losing. And, it is entirely rational to not play -- or at least resist -- if you don't think you have a decent chance of winning. It seems to me that it is one of the reasons guys like Buffett and Munger got where they are -- 1 foot hurdles and all that. I think Buffett once said (or repeated): "How do you beat Michael Jordan?...Play him in something other than basketball." But, in a world of ever increasing specialization, it does make sense to me that one wants to know as soon as possible what they're not good at if only to get closer to something they are good at. Then again, all the good stories start with: "I never gave up...".

For those interested, I believe the link below includes the Wesco letter to which Buffett refers. Unsurprisingly, a very good read: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/949558/Wesco-Financial-1990-Letter

Good call, Liberty. I think Hoffman is the best -- literally a chameleon.

This is a good point. I think you (and others in this thread) are right when they say that Buffett was doing what you're doing when he was managing small amounts. And, since, as you point out, he is the MJ of investing, he got big enough pretty fast that his early style was no longer well known by the time he was. This is a guy who said he went through every stock in those stock manuals -- he wasn't looking for U.S. Steel. Your as well as others' comments in this thread about who the sellers are is very useful. Excellent thread for those of us looking to improve in this area.

I agree with twacowfca's agreement with Packer on this idea, in a big way. It is easy to see the flaws with the idea of letting people walk away from debts. It is not easy to see the (likely massive) benefits of letting people walk away. In fact, as in Packer's example, the benefits (of the British system) are most clear only when compared to those that do it another way. I don't necessarily think it would be easy to predict it would work the way it does. Sometimes "saving face" costs everyone. It reminds me of this treatise: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#Chapter 1

+1

Cool...well done.

I think you've captured something with these two paragraphs that I like. While I wouldn't say that I was an "actually" type, I was extraordinarily argumentative. Eventually, I changed but I'm not sure it has suited me. One reason I changed was that I felt others didn't like being argued with -- especially in front of the opposite sex -- and so were therefore angry with me. And, frankly, that they were also stealing my insights afterwards. The arguing was hurting me twice with men -- women, though, were attracted to it. Something I knew but not to degree. Plus, there are other ways to impress women -- at least the types you'd actually want to date, marry, etc. There is a downside to being agreeable and you hit on it in your first paragraph. When (inevitably) rivals think (or conclude) that you are a threat to what they're after, they like nothing more than to learn that you're "agreeable". They conclude that you will be easy to manipulate and thus easy to remove as a threat. War analogies make this one easy to see. My trouble comes from the fact that I'm "faking" it when I'm being agreeable. When the rival realizes this -- and it always happens sooner or later -- he becomes quite angry. Had they never concluded I was easy to roll, they would have been much less likely to get angry when it didn't happen. (War analogy again -- don't look weak when you're strong.) So, I like your distinction regarding the times that being agreeable is clearly useful and the times when it is likely a negative. Some of my funnier stories revolve around how this plays out with salesmen. They'll agree with anything to get rapport. Later, you get to know them, and realize they're just as clueless as everyone else. They were just "agreeing" with you in hopes of getting a sale at some point. These ideas are another reason why a moderated board of smart people having tons of segmented conversations on topics is so damn interesting. It has the positives instead of the negatives in the reality you described above. So, Sanjeev has created here what I had hoped to find at University -- applied intellectuals. Well done.

+1 Literally the best series I've ever seen. It is pure AU.

Since you mention food, I always like to see if I can find old shows from "No Reservations" [now showing on CNN as "Parts Unknown) (Anthony Bourdain); Bizzare Foods (Andrew Zimmern) and Diner's, Drive in's and Dives (Guy Fieri). All have websites, IIRC, that at least cover the shows visits. Seeing if there is a show at least one of them has done on the city you're going to (and I know one the above, at least, did one on Toronto...think it was Bourdain) is a great way to see some different neighborhoods and a wide variety of food joints and places you might not have heard of. Obviously, the shows can be old so check whether the places are still hip (or at least open!). Trip Advisor also has some good reviews -- though you have to try to get a feel for whether the person has an axe to grind, doesn't like the type of scene you will, etc.. And, of course, the locals here will know best!! :D Enjoy

Are the screws being tightened. I remember when they were circling Berkowitz. Presumably Ackman's capital is more stable than Berkowitz's -- then again, with fewer investors, maybe it's the opposite.

For me, part of the title of this thread makes little sense. U.S. healthcare (and most modern healthcare...many of the ideas we benefit from started in Germany some many decades ago) has been AMAZINGLY effective. And, that's the "problem" -- one for which there is not a good solution. In my mind, the "solution" that is being pursued is limiting supply. Beginning about 100 or 150 years ago, healthcare began to make advances in the West which -- to this day -- have been unending. Once a medical problem is solved -- like, say, kidney dialysis -- decent people naturally feel compelled to provide it for everyone no matter what the cost. Decent people don't want to play God. But, many of these procedures are simply incredibly expensive -- particularly the ones which start as advances (even if they eventually become commonplace...that's the pattern, of course). Healthcare simply can't eat of all the wealth of even the most prosperous of nations. No one thinks all people deserve to live in palaces but almost everyone feels that most people deserve to have life saving treatments whatever the cost. That makes sense. Looking for solutions to things that aren't the cause of the problem won't work. The irony here is that this insight was the beginning of the century (plus) of advances in healthcare that have been so incredible. This is another depressing situation.

I think this is a good point. Forgetting the specific situation of large banks for a moment, the general idea seems sometimes to be under-appreciated by investors but much appreciated by business owners / operators. Back in the days when I was in the throes of infatuation of learning from Buffett, I used to talk with an investor friend who said that "valuing Berkshire was too hard because they had so many different businesses / revenue streams". I said that I felt the opposite. The different revenue streams made it easier to value for me. I was gratified that some years later, Buffett actually noted this in an annual report. Munger has pointed out that every business (even every civilization) ends. I realize that's a depressing thought to many. But, if one let's the depressing part of it pass and accepts it, then one can think about how to approach investments (or other parts of life) if Munger is correct. Berkshire has put this idea into practice by letting many businesses slowly run / die without sinking ever more capital into the same idea but instead using the profits to buy other idea whose life has some years in front of it. I hope I didn't hijack this thread. Anyway, on the large banks, one should ask himself, why did Buffett say recently that: "I guarantee you the big banks won't be the thing that next gets us into trouble." The people that made the big banks huge positions at the lows likely had this figured out.

Matt Pauls = mpauls Cool to be quoted!! Miss his posts here.

The behavior is similar to BNSF -- though I can't recall if there was standstill with BNSF. My main -- and not insignificant -- feeling against a deal is that I would be surprised if Berkshire wants to own all of (as opposed to a percentage of a publicly traded) business which derives its revenues / profits from healthcare. It's easier to attack a possession of the king than it is that of the commoner. "Heavy is the head..." and all that.

scorpioncapital, Thanks for posting this.

I would say: "we know there is only ONE possible outcome but since we don't know what it is, we are forced to make educated guesses."

A good article. I've been a bit harsh on tilson a few times in the past. It seems that maybe he's reducing his profile a bit now that he's ended his partnership and maybe that's allowed him to tone things down. Of course, he is touting a book! But, maybe it worth a read.

I figure that if stocks crater, Fairfax will just cash in / take off their stock hedges. But, I don't think it's likely they will significantly increase their allocation to stocks as a percentage of their portfolio. What do others expect?