meiroy

Well, lots of people on the SHLD thread would disagree with you. Just sayin.

Even if they avoid a debt crisis -- pettis gives it a maximum until 2017 or 2018 -- there's still a "lost decade", at the minimum. I'm a Pettis fan and his aggregate look at the world is fantastic, it seems quite accurate to me. His latest book Avoiding the Fall is a good introduction to figuring things out. Recommended.

A panel discussion with Mr. Druckenmiller and James J. Dunne III, A fantastic discussion relating to this topic. Highly recommended.

Duration and return. I think what's missing from a lot of these discussions is the hidden assumption that at least in US markets, as long as the valuation was done well, the gap tends to close within 2 to 3 years and sometimes much faster and the decision if to hold or not is a combination of both the "balance" return and the duration to achieve it. THIS assumption is why we are value investors in a way. If the duration was 12 to 13 years for a stock to close the gap and double, for example, it would not be all that attractive... Which brings "momentum" and timing into the discussion. If it rose from 50 to 85 after two years, and you think it would take another 3 to get to 100 then it might not be worth it. If on the other hand momentum is going on and you reckon it will get to 100 within 6 months then you might re-buy. This is how I see it anyhow.

“The point is, markets adapt, people adapt."

Anyone been reading fin. statements on Nexus 10?

High inequality damages the general economy. People at the very top side of the inequality save far more and consume less than people at lower income (as percentage of income). This means higher saving rate and lower consumption rate when the inequality is at its extremes, which in turns leads to slower economic growth, if at all. There can be full employment and the inequality would keep getting worse. It's more about policies.

FWIW WSBASE is up a out 88% since QE I was announced, and the S&P 500 is up about 64% as would be expected when inflation has been confined to financial assets. However, M2 is up 30% during the same period. That 's not inconsequential for the broader economy. If anyone can tell me when the tap will be turned off, I'll tell him how to get a free ride down the shaft to the bottom of the pit. What if it won't be turned off in the foreseeable future?

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2013/10/bank-lending-continues-to-increase.html http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-fed-is-not-printing-money.html

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-369335/ "Employing unusually sharp language, the U.S. on Wednesday openly criticized Germany’s economic policies and blamed the euro-zone powerhouse for dragging down its neighbors and the rest of the global economy. In its semiannual currency report, the Treasury Department identified Germany’s export-led growth model as a major factor responsible for the 17-nation currency bloc’s weak growth. The U.S. identified Germany ahead of its traditional target, China, and the most-recent perceived problem country, Japan, in the “key findings” section of the report. The U.S. is itself dealing with persistently weak U.S. growth and has faced complaints from some countries about its attempts at overcoming sluggish growth, including the Federal Reserve’s stimulus policies. Finance leaders have also taken aim at the U.S. over the global economic impact of fiscal wrangling between the White House and Congress, including the government shutdown and debt-ceiling fight. The Treasury Department, with the latest report, has now criticized the world’s three largest economies after the U.S. for their economic policies. The focus on Germany represents a stark shift in the Obama administration’s economic engagement with one of its most important allies. Since the early stages of the euro-zone debt crisis in 2010, U.S. officials often avoided public criticism of Germany given its central role in keeping the currency bloc intact. President Barack Obama and his top officials worked carefully behind the scenes to prod Germany without antagonizing it publicly. The currency report comes at a time when officials in Berlin and Washington are already clashing over other issues including allegations about U.S. spying." This is big, read the entire article. This is what Soros and many others have said for a long while now, it's the first time that USA officials start to address it. An optimistic would say this is the first step for a recovery in Europe, where Germany will have to face its own local policies and take upon itself higher unemployment in order to save Europe. A less optimistic person would put their helmet on and buy some canned food.

Recently I've been buying lottery tickets and thus expect my cash balance to increase dramatically in the very near future. Any day now.

Yepp, there's also an offshore and another one. http://marketbrief.com/michael-james-burry http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1586367/000158636713000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

http://hbr.org/search/William%20J.%20Poorvu/0 List of cases/articles on HBR. Not sure if some are in one of the books.

Well thanks for the info at least. Now I can try to prevent this ever happening to me. I believe they do pay fees from margin, this really seems like a tripped bug in the system given that it was a near-zero balance or something. I mean, if you've got a margin, it is impossible to *not* pay fees from margin, and they certainly don't liquidate in those cases. If I recall correctly, they wouldn't pay fees from margin because it was a transfer in. A different policy may apply once the account is established, but they definitely liquidated 100 shares to pay for the fees. if I'm not mistaken ACATS is free on IB's side so there would be no fee, unless you didn't use ACATS? ACATS should also protect against a situation where the stocks would cause a margin violation -- the transfer would be rejected.

I've started reading his books, they are quite good and should appeal to "value investors". Thanks!

No, don't keep a zero cash balance, you might have some fees to be paid to IB and then you might get liquidated if excess liquidity is not enough (IB do not issue margin calls, they just liquidate). It's less of an issue with p.margin due to how excess liquidity is calculated but anyhow just play it safe if it's something you are worried about. You might also have payable interest from previous trades or on foreign currency etc. I just had a conversation with IB regarding my concerns with the inconvenience of cash account and risks of a margin account, and they said on their back end server, they have a way to restrict my margin account such that it will only be borrowing against the unsettled cash. I think that is exactly what I needed. I am very happy with that! :) I do not understand it... could you explain? First, I was under the impression IB immediately adds to the cash calculation the sold amount and adjusts the maint/int margins even if it is not settled yet. Is it not so? Second, even if that's not correct and it takes three days, so after three days you cover the borrowing with the settled cash but how does it change anything really? As I mentioned, with excess liquidity at 0 you do not have to borrow to get liquidated, it can come in the form of fees, payable interest or dividends etc. The main issue is to understand how IB calculates margins and initiate liquidation, the algorithm is on their site. It will go into action even if it's just 1 cent. That's the only thing that matters. Of course, maybe I'm wrong...

No, don't keep a zero cash balance, you might have some fees to be paid to IB and then you might get liquidated if excess liquidity is not enough (IB do not issue margin calls, they just liquidate). It's less of an issue with p.margin due to how excess liquidity is calculated but anyhow just play it safe if it's something you are worried about. You might also have payable interest from previous trades or on foreign currency etc.

Same here (other than the toddler reading before 3, how did you accomplish that?)

1. Recently the USA was on the ""brink of a default"" yet the market only burped a bit. Nothing really happened. The tide went out and no one gave a hoot about if people were wearing swimming suits or justy neck ties. It is officially a bull market. 2. 1.5% GDP growth: the government sector is pushing it down, the private sector is actually higher. 3. QE and interest rates. I'm not so sure the correlation is that strong, the Fed doesn't seem to be that sure about it either. 4. China. They are changing what exactly? 2013 have seen another MASSIVE liquidity pump and more investment into infrastructure -- it's just more of the same and getting worse. Buying time at best. I'll believe a change when I'll see it -- politically it will be extremely difficult. 5. Europe. I don't buy the recent optimism and think Soros has it spot on, it's all about Germany, if they do not acknowledge their role and adjust things will break apart.

That incredible long term ROIC is a result of a moat. It's not "premium plastic blocks"...

I'm not sure I can talk about it publicly, but perhaps a PM? Not surprisingly, it is a value fund ;). What she wrote was really, really impressive; the use of structure, biases etc. My guess is that either she is a psychologist or a professional marketing writer or something. You should let your wife write the quarterly letters, you'd get to a billion within 5 years even you make only 3% a year. ;) Seriously, really impressive... and congrats on your fund, going by your posts you do not need any good luck, you'll do fantastically.

I think Kraven just killed JCP with his post. Seriously, though, I'm shocked that 12 year old have so much knowledge about shopping and that they shop at brand names.. when my daughter will reach 12 I'll make her knit her own clothes from used fiber.

I've read this one http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Giant-Amazing-Greenberg-History/dp/0470480025/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379998540&sr=8-2&keywords=The+AIG+Story The first version, though, which is from 2006 ... :o The 2nd ed is from 2009, a world apart. In the first half of the book the author writes about the history of AIG starting in 1919 in Shanghai with C. V. Starr, his entrepreneurial spirit, the historical background at the time, going through the war, communists take over and so on. I found it to be both interesting and entertaining. Greenberg gets his own credit later on. I wonder how much weight Starr gets in Greenberg's own book.

Now you are making me want to buy all 3 books mentioned. My library is already stuffed. Don't buy The Art of Profitability! It's a rabbit hole of (required, but all awesome) books to read! Seriously tho, it's an amazing book. I have no idea why no one knows about it. Thanks to you and Plan. It is indeed a great book. Beautifully placed simple concepts leading you down the rabbit hole as you've put it. As for the Wallmart book, I though it's OK. A quick and easy read.

Send him an email and ask?