merkhet

Theory: Shorting is helpful to protect against corrections Practice: Few people are able to generate alpha through shorting So... how many people on this thread have been able to say that their short book has been a net positive for them over the long-term?

I don't believe Sarofim trailed the market when he began. He was a very early investor of Teledyne. I think he just outgrew his ability to outperform.

what didnt you like about it? I'm curious about the Fargo show as well. I've been meaning to watch it since I went to high school with Alison Tollman.

I would respectfully suggest that speed reading and knowledge acquisition are totally compatible, at least the way I do it. Part of the reading process is to stop, make the connections, ask questions then dive back in. I think what you learned in high school was not the half of it! If you can read/scan something three times (in the half the time it takes some to make one pass) and make the connections that I submit is great knowledge acquisition, but it is not easy and contemplative. I think this is probably a personal preference thing. *shrug*

LOL! The Lego Movie? Cheers! I actually really liked that movie.

I'll take a crack at the response: (1) Protecting the Bondholders (I'm assuming by bondholders, you mean the government preferred shareholders.) Assuming, arguendo, that the FHFA was just protecting the bondholders, that does not explain why the amendment should continue in effect now that the bondholders have received in excess of the amount that they initially put up in principal. The capital structure has been protected, and the government bondholder's cup runneth over. (2) The Intrinsic Value Question I think you answered your own question there. The intrinsic value of a security is the sum of all discounted cash flows that will accrue to the securityholder over the life of the security. Usually, this creates a problem because the future is unknowable. However, we have an additional two years of profitability that provides us with a better sense of the intrinsic value of the common and preferred shares -- so why would anyone create a DCF projecting the 2Q2012 profits in perpetuity when we already know that doesn't match reality? --- As a side note, a great opinion piece released in the WSJ yesterday: http://online.wsj.com/articles/william-isaac-playing-semantic-games-with-fannie-and-freddie-investors-1404683708?mod=yahoo_hs

I actually took a speed reading course when I was in high school. It wasn't for me. There's a big difference for me between slow and contemplative reading vs. speed reading. My mind just can't make the connections that I need it to make when I approach reading that way. Speed isn't really the goal -- knowledge acquisition and integration is the goal. Speed might help (1) but it's a hinderance for (2). My book list is rather esoteric. I have a Brian Greene book on there about string theory, Elizabeth Warren's biography, a book on the role of privilege in admissions for higher education, The House of Morgan, Outlaws of the Marsh (a Chinese classic), Barbarians at the Gate and Think Like a Freak, etc. Generally, my books fall into a few categories (1) math/science, (2) psychology, (3) biographies, (4) business history, (5) education policy and (6) random literature. I agree that a lot of books have filler, but I think of the filler the way I think of Supreme Court decisions. Sure, I can just skip to the parts where they talk about the decision and the breakdown of the justices that voted for each one -- but it's way more helpful to read the entire exposition to understand the thought process that went into the decision.

My reading queue is ridiculously long -- there are currently 40+ books on my Kindle and, with the addition of Adapt, 60 books on my wishlist. At least I'm doing my best to fulfill Munger's thought that we should all be a little wiser at the end of the day than we were at the beginning of the day.

Would anyone happen to have a copy of John Maynard Keynes' Letter to F.C. Scott? I think that would be an excellent read if anyone could find the full text.

It's so weird to read this book, because, as I am reading it, I am hearing Barry's voice. He has a very distinctive way of speaking.

Is anyone else as bothered by the misplaced thousands seperators? Or is it just me? Also, I'm surprised by the fact that he has bought only about $10 million USD or 2.5%. I thought he'd gone back to 10% positions.

Happy Birthday!

I was referring to the Berkshire Hathaway meetings, and you can buy entry into those for just $5 on eBay for a shareholder pass. I'm not sure about the specific rules of the DJCO meeting, but I think it's the case that you don't have to be a shareholder for that one either -- someone who has gone should chime in here on whether that's the case.

Except, you don't have to be a shareholder to hear him speak...

Don't come here with your negative energy please. "There is always something to do" as Peter Cundill, a fellow value investor, would say. Please read the above post. YOU TOO can learn to read the market signs. lol, that's what I'm afraid of... :)

Heh, funny -- I was about to start a topic "Is anyone else bored right now?" There hasn't been a lot to do for a while...

A few questions: (1) Do you want to pay the loan off after 5 years? (2) Is the interest rate fixed or variable after the first five years? If it's a low and fixed rate loan for 16 years, and your sister has other funds available to her in order to support her through her studies, then I don't really see the problem with investing the money over that timeframe -- so long as you don't immediately need it after 5 years to pay down the loan.

I just read the WSJ and look at who they're ragging on at the moment. It has been a fairly good screen over the years.

That being said, it doesn't matter which one they win on. They only need one.

Well, briefs are written to be persuasive... A ruling on most of the other things will seem to go a little further than is necessary. Most judges dislike making rulings that are too far beyond necessity because it opens them up to reverse on appeal, and judges, having egos like the rest of us, dislike being told that they are wrong. My sense is that a ruling, if it comes to that, will come on the fact that the government has failed to satisfy the burden of proving that it had a rational reason for its decision given that there is no evidentiary trail. So the most likely outcome, IMO, is that they will rule on the lack of meeting this burden of proof without necessarily ruling on any of the other claims.

I have recently flipped from thinking that this case won't be won to thinking that the case can be won. About two months ago, I started thinking that the allowance of discovery would prove to be the downfall of the Sweep Amendment. Page 26 of the Perry Injunction seems to agree: The interesting thing is that under the APA and the Chevron doctrine, administrative agencies can do almost whatever they want so long as they have a rational reason to do so -- except that they have to show that they had a rational reason, and here they cannot establish an evidentiary record showing that they have done that. IMHO, that's pretty damning. I suspect that a court would give them leeway had this happened in the middle of the crisis (circa 2008-2009) where speed was of the essence, but 2012 is a completely different story.

An excellent article, as always.

A research paper that finally talks about what we in the CoBaFF community have known all along. Some highlights include: It's the Kleig-light syndrome -- you get the behavior you incentivize, so when you incentivize volatility and Sharpe ratios, you get crappy portfolio returns. Noted again here: Enjoy my fellow concentrated investors. :) [Note: I didn't see that this was published all the way back in 2009 -- so others may already have seen this] Best_Ideas_Research_Paper.pdf

Mathematics and Neurobiology here. Then law school. Then business school. About to start medical school so I can have the trifecta. (j/k)

Not to stereotype, but I would imagine us "nerds" have more affinity for companies like TSLA vs. companies like LULU. I have long suspected that this is why the board tends to have petty squabbles every few months -- well, this and the fact that we're predominantly male.