given2invest

That's true but also need to factor in transaction costs and liquidity, which is huge here. It's not so easy to move if you own a home. If you rent, you can be out in a flash. But as rent approaches an all in cap rate of 7-8%, it definitely makes sense to consider buying vs. renting.

I think too often, people forget to do the math on the opportunity cost when buying a house. I totally agree, though most people don't trust the stock market and don't think they have any true "opportunities" other than building home equity. Opportunity cost is the main reason I've never owned a home.

Harry strikes me as the kind of guy who is quite passionate about what he writes, and has a high conviction in his beliefs. While some might have considered him abrasive in the past, I thought he bent over backwards to be respectful towards conflicting opinions. A few of you then made unfair personal attacks on him. It seems to me that a collective bout of groupthink seems to afflict some of you folks once Harry posts. Is it a success complex - I don't know. For the record, I'm brand new here. I don't know any of the personalities and came into Harry's thread with no "groupthink".

I have not fabricated anything. I am sure the Admin can post my message to you for all to see. Again, you are impugning my character. He told he he didn't have the time to call me, which is fine It was 9 PM on a Saturday. I told you I would call you on Monday. Haha this is all so funny. I feel like I'm in Junior High. I have better things to do. Best of luck on your investments Harry.

I posted a thesis which you disagree with. I did not post a "broken thesis." And your "damage is already done" comment is similarly insulting. Just say that you disagree. I do appreciate that your previous comment has been modified. Saying I don't agree with your thesis vs. saying it's broken is like saying that you don't agree that smoking causes cancer or that 2+2=4. There aren't two sides to this issue. You have misunderstood what casino hold is and how it is manipulated by casino management. I attempted, for 10 pages, to explain this to you. No activist - not even Carl Icahn - can get MNTG to raise it's hold 1-4% without a decrease in corresponding revenues. It simply isn't going to happen. I even pointed out that Jacob's was an activist and owns nearly 20% of the company. What has stopped him from doing this? He's on the board and has decades of gaming experience. I just don't know any other way to explain this to you. So it's not a matter of opinion, is my point. We aren't debating the merits of MNTG as a stock pick or whether or not the Heat will win the NBA Finals. We are (were) debating about whether or not the sky is blue.

I am especially insulted, because after one his first postings, I invited him to call me at the office, so we could discuss the dynamics of jackpots. I would rather help someone privately, than be forced to poke holes in their mathematical assumptions publicly. He told he he didn't have the time to call me, which is fine. But I prefer to handle things in a gentlemanly manner, especially when it appeared that he took my objections to his arguments personally. Simply fabricated. He wanted me to call him at 9 PM on a Saturday night and I told him I'd call him on Monday. That was before I had any idea what I was getting myself into. You didn't hurt my feelings, Harry. Unlike you, I'm not threatening to leave the board after being told I was the product of "bad breeding". Unlike you, I had nothing to gain from entering that discussion. I have no horse in the MNTG race. I have no capital on the line. I was simply trying to help you. I repeat, I was simply trying to help you.

I'm pretty much speechless. In no way have I slandered you. I have absolutely no interest in engaging you on anything ever again. Feel free to continue posting here because you will never hear a response from me going forward in any thread you make. I'm not being childish, I just don't have any desire to drive someone from this board or make them feel bad simply by trying to save them money. This is what an ignore function is used for, in case people were wondering. I never said you were intentionally misleading retail investors. You are playing with my words to suit your own agenda. What you did was post a broken thesis on Seeking Alpha after you were told by numerous people who work in/around the industry that it's broken. I fully believe that you believe in your thesis and don't think it's broken and did not mean any ill will. That's beside the point though because the damage is already done, like the guy who bought shares this morning when it gapped up 10% and is now up 1%.

It seems unfair that the person that started the thread can delete the entire conversation and debate that many board members contribute to. A lot of valuable discussion is lost in this manner. Can this be adjusted so that no one except the forum administrator can delete a thread? I'd like to second this. The only other board I frequent only allows admins to delete a thread. What if that thread was 50 pages long and could have been a resource to others looking into the gaming industry? At some point (pretty much when you hit submit), a thread takes on a life of its own and has little to do with the author.

All that I said was #winning, which I thought was pretty funny if I may say so myself. I never said a single thing about him personally, though the same can't be said about his words towards me.

Yah, I think all of my hard work was deleted. :-\ I even sent that link to a few people.

Couldn't we be saying that now? What's to stop people from bashing other posters and telling them how much they suck and how they aren't paying attention to their posts? Nothing. All an "ignore" function does is allow people to literally ignore someone that they view as a nuisance to the board. For the record, I wouldn't put anyone on ignore here. I'm just saying it's a good function to have on a message board. And it's not really controversial. That's why I find the thread funny.

haha you guys are so funny. how does it effect you if i ignore someone?

It's an OPTION. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Why subject me to your views on whether I have to read other's views?

I'd very much like this option.

The problem with shorting a hedge fund is that while the fee structure and returns net of fees to investors is outrageously low on a risk/adjusted basis, it is still most likely going to be positive. If you assume the average hedge fund does 8% a year and they charge 1.5 and 20 then the manager is getting a bit under 3% of the 8% total return in fees! However, the investor is still making + returns. IE, shorting a hedge fund won't make you anything. What you want to do is short the hedge fund BUSINESS or pair trade hedge fund returns vs index funds w/o fees. I'm not sure you are able to do this. The best way to short hedge funds is probably to short AMG. They make GP investments in hedge funds.

So what? The whole point is that you're buying a basket of stocks. It doesn't matter what any individual stock does; it's only important how the basket performs. That's pretty much the whole point of investing in baskets/indexes/etc. What if beating the market over the long-term required you to underperform for periods up to 3 yrs in length? Do you still think the computers would "efficient the shit out of it?" Remember what happened to LTCM? Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Ever heard of Dimensional Fund Advisors. They took Fama and French's research and built a massive business around it. http://www.dfaus.com/ And I'm saying a basket of magic formula stocks will not outperform the correct benchmark going forward. Back testing is irrelevant to me. I have no problem with baskets, hell I just put on a large cap value basket. Regarding this: "What if beating the market over the long-term required you to underperform for periods up to 3 yrs in length? Do you still think the computers would "efficient the shit out of it?" Remember what happened to LTCM? Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." I said markets aren't efficient. Your hypothetical example is kind of silly to me. Also, I have no idea what your point is with LTCM. That computers can get it wrong? Of course. Where did I say they couldn't? Where did I advocate computer based investing?

The problem I have with the magic formula is it's all backwords looking and doesn't take into account: 1) businesses that are going away and thus their historical returns are irrelevant (USMO for example, pre stupid acquisition) 2) businesses that have had huge writedowns and thus their ROA isn't what it appears Could there be a very simple shorthand for "beating" the market? I guess. But it seems like by definition, once it's discovered, it ceases to exist. I don't believe in efficient markets but I do believe that if there is a simple stat program that could vastly outperform the market - the computers will "efficient the shit out of it". I bought Joel's new book and look forward to reading it. I actually respect what he's trying to do. We all get asked all the time how someone should invest and it's am impossible question to answer. The default is usually index funds and set it and forget it and don't expect to get rich off of it. Maybe there is something better...but I doubt it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576245271170720328.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection Warren Buffett warned Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s top employees last year against trading in shares of companies in which Berkshire might invest—the very issue that now is dogging the conglomerate. His memo, "'Insider' Trading Policies and Procedures," sent last May and in place for more than 10 years, could turn up the heat on Mr. Buffett regarding recent trading by his top lieutenant David Sokol. However, the memo bars certain Berkshire officials from trading in public companies "that may be involved in a significant transaction with Berkshire," including those "in which Berkshire has invested or may in the future invest."

Well for starters, I'm eliminating financials and any upper teens P/E stocks. Poor decision to eliminate financial industry stocks in a rebounding economy.. Says you :) I don't want anything with zero risk/leverage.

Well for starters, I'm eliminating financials and any upper teens P/E stocks. Also, by buying them individually I can sell my short term losers in 11 months and only have long term cap gains. Very advantageous vs an ETF.

I'm probably just going to go long the stocks and not mess with the puts. There are a variety of reasons for this but mostly that selling puts is leverage just like buying a basket of these stocks on margin is which is what I'm going to do.

KFT, KO, PEP, UPS have all worked/too expensive. Trying to keep this at 10x companies except for CL and PG cause I just really like those. Yah I'm being biased. No GE because financial.

I've added: CSCO, INTC, PFE, CL, JNJ, TGT, MDT, MRK, TEVA, HPQ

Team: I'm looking to put together a small large cap value basket. My thought process is to either sell puts on this basket or buy the stocks outright. Currently, I have three stocks: WMT MSFT DELL I'd like to add 2-7 more. Any suggestions? Doesn't have to be tech, preference if it isn't. I also don't want large holding companies like BRK and would rather stay away from financials. Thanks!

Nah, one thing has nothing to do with the other. He wasn't conned into buying it to make David $3 Million dollars.