given2invest
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by given2invest
-
-
I think if you look closely at why little has been accomplished all you have to do is look at how he has treated the opposition. Most presidents that have accomplished big things in the past 20/30 years have realized that the country is divided and develop good relations with the opposition to get things done. Reagan's first thing he did when he got into office was to personally call every Demcorat in Congress and develop a relationship with them. Carter and Obama by contrast thought they knew what was best and pushed their priorities versus developing respectful relationships with the opposition. I agree that he has done a good job if you agree with him but the mark of a good leader is one who can put a compromise together and have both sides respect him.
Packer
Kind of hard when the opposition thinks you're a socialist who is part of Al Queda and wasn't born in this country, no?
-
I don't like talking politics on message boards, but it seems to me that all the Replublicans do is try to block everything Obama tries to do so that in the next election they can try to convince people that Obama didn't accomplish anything. The GOP actually seems to intentionally do things to hurt this country for the sake of trying to make Obama and Democrats look bad. I know Obama hasn't been perfect, but the current GOP is a showcase of everything that is wrong with politics. I know others on here probably don't agree, and that's fine, but Obama has done a pretty exceptional job, in my opinion, despite the efforts of the Republican Party to try to sabotage his presidency. I really hope I'm wrong about the GOP's intentions, but it really has been one thing after another.
tea party
-
Putting his words into action, Buffett made a number of investments which, at the time, were viewed as wildly risky. In the months and years following, however, his decision to step in and save Goldman Sachs, take a chance on General Electric and go "all-in" on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, have only helped him further grow his already massive wealth.
This is hogwash. Those preferred deals were never seen as risky at the time. In fact, it was wildly accepted on Wall Street that Buffett got an amazing deal that any fund would have gladly taken if given the opportunity, especially on the Goldman purchase.
-
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf
It would seem that this is a regular ocurrence that has taken place almost every year since 2001.
So why is this time different from all the other times ?,
& who benefits by trying to manufacture a 'market' hysteria ?
Puts quite a different spin on the issue.
SD
It's different this time because congress (republicans) have never said before they won't raise the limit. It's definitely different this time.
-
Here are some things I'm short and/or some potential shorts I'm thinking about. From a probabalistic point of view, they're interesting. We'll see what happens.
AVII
BTX
BVN
DLB
GERN
GOOG
HALO
INFY
ISIS
WAVX
NVAX
HDB
NABI
CNQR
CYTX
TRGT
NG
HTWR
MITI
MSFT
PHI
QLGC
RMBS
SCCO
SID
SLAB
TAT
UNIS
WHX
GNI
Nice day on NABI. Down 69% so far today! I know Hester's not a fan, but if you look at the list, which is probabilistic in nature, overall, it's done very, very nicely! ;D
Your black box predicted their phase 3 trial would fail?
-
Good riddance front runners liquidity providers...
-
I agree, poor journalism.
-
I was there when that question was asked. He wasn't saying that markets ran in perfect 17 year runs. All he was saying, in response to the question about the S&P contracts Berkshire insured, was that if markets run flat for the next few years because of the deleveraging process and then a new bull run starts as many people expect, including Munger, then Berkshire would not incur much in losses...if any...as the coverage dates were well out! That's all he was saying there.
That's not at all what it sounded like he meant in that article, for what it's worth. It sounds like he believes in 17 year cycles. Why else would he have said the next bull market will end in 2033?
It looks like there was a loss of accuracy in translating what was said to what was written. The transcript was written by another party. It never occurred to me that he could mean that there would be a market cycle lasting exactly 17 years. I dont think he thinks that way. I think every one here would agree with you if that were the case.
OK, that makes more sense. I take back my initial comment if the quote was taken out of context.
-
I was there when that question was asked. He wasn't saying that markets ran in perfect 17 year runs. All he was saying, in response to the question about the S&P contracts Berkshire insured, was that if markets run flat for the next few years because of the deleveraging process and then a new bull run starts as many people expect, including Munger, then Berkshire would not incur much in losses...if any...as the coverage dates were well out! That's all he was saying there.
That's not at all what it sounded like he meant in that article, for what it's worth. It sounds like he believes in 17 year cycles. Why else would he have said the next bull market will end in 2033?
-
His statements on net nets also make no sense whatsoever. I am surprised a value "guru" would make such statements. From Ben Graham to Tweedy Browne net nets have been shown to outperform the market time after time. Combined with his views on bull and bear cycles, I am wondering what exactly it is he is thinking.
I think his point that most net nets are extremely overcapitalized companies where even if the EV were to double you wouldn't make a great return on your invested capital. That's something I generally agree with.
-
He wasn't saying that. He was saying that we had a 17 year bull market and then we have to have a 17 year bear market. This will be followed by another 17 year bull market. At least that's how I interpret it.
-
So we have these perfect symmetry events where 1982 to 1999 the market ran a lot. And from 1999 to 2016 let’s say it does nothing or did nothing. So all we have to do is get to 2016 with a pot of cash and then we climb again until 2033.
He sounds so f'n stupid here. I'll never listen to another word this guy says. That being said, he's absolutely right about his opinion of most net-nets.
-
On a very simplistic level, I am confident the debt limit is going to increase on time. I just can't imagine a scenario where that wouldn't happen, even if the GOP has to take it on the lip. Imagine the headlines when voting starts: Democrats were willing to compromise, Republicans weren't. Vote Lib!
That said, I was all cash until today, where I went balls to the walls and put all my money into one stock.
TELL US WHICH ONE!
Honestly it's not an 'I'm smarter than most investors, deep value' type investment. It's more of a trade. Apple.
You put 100% of your net worth in it?
-
On a very simplistic level, I am confident the debt limit is going to increase on time. I just can't imagine a scenario where that wouldn't happen, even if the GOP has to take it on the lip. Imagine the headlines when voting starts: Democrats were willing to compromise, Republicans weren't. Vote Lib!
That said, I was all cash until today, where I went balls to the walls and put all my money into one stock.
TELL US WHICH ONE!
-
The wide agreement of the assumption of a rally after an agreement is reached is what concerns me! I am making no predictions, but, don't see how something that is widely regarded as a certainty is such a certain thing.
Let me be clear: I think there is a greater than 5 or 10% chance they do not raise the debt ceiling, so it is far from a guarantee there is a rally. I basically see it as a 2% up day when they raise it and a 10-20% down day/week if they fail to do it. Even if it's done day 3,4,5 - the repercussions will be huge. Moody's has said they will lower the rating to AA indefinitely. Congress will make the mistake of a generation fucking this up.
-
It has nothing to do with the US being able to repay. They will never default, as you said. They will print money forever to get out of it. This is really just about two things:
1) Do they go past the deadline for a few days or a week and essentially halt the world economy in the meantime?
2) If Moody's downgrades to AA, even though it should be meaningless given how awful Moody's and the credit rating agencies are, it isn't because many institutions can only buy AAA rated bonds. This will mean there will be widespread selling of US Govmt bonds and borrowing costs will skyrocket which will have devastating effects on the economy.
-
Before 2008 when Congress allowed the bank bailout bill to fail and the dow fell 600 or 700 points in a matter of minutes, I would have told you there is a 0% chance they don't hike the debt ceiling.
I would say there is a 5% chance they don't hike the debt ceiling. Even more absurd, once they reach an 11th hour agreement, you will see a monster rally.
-
I don't even know someone short this. In fact, since you're long it - I hope it turns out to be legit and goes to 20. Further, it would provide huge embarrassment to Paulson which would be hilarious to me.
;)
-
“Wow... umm. Sino forest postponed the analyst tour for their forests... the excuses they give are bullshit. This is really not a good sign.”
So Sino cancels the tour as they have something to hide? But if you read the story it plainly says.....
“Analysts confirmed that they advised the company to postpone the trip because it wouldn’t be helpful.”
So to be balanced, it was Sino’s tour, therefore only Sino could postpone it. However, it was the invited analysts that asked that the tour be delayed. It is a little misleading to suggest that Sino is doing it because they have something to hide. The analysts reasonably felt that it would make more sense to do a tour after the audit. Once that is in we should have a better idea of what is going on.
Yah, a company that is under the suspicion of massive fraud should certainly have their press releases taken at face value.
It's not coming from the company's mouth, it's coming from the analysts mouth.
From the article:
"Analysts confirmed that they advised the company to postpone the trip because it wouldn’t be helpful."
Stephen Atkinson, an analyst at BMO Nesbitt Burns who covers Sino-Forest, agreed with that assessment. “Basically, for the trip to be worthwhile, the analysts really need to meet the auditors involved, as well as [Poyry, the company that did a valuation of its forest land]. At the moment, these people wouldn’t be available,” he said.
“I and other analysts said ‘No, we’re better off to wait and do everything all at once, rather than go there, get a bit of information and then go back again,’” Mr. Atkinson said.
But don't let the facts get in the way ...
I'm not involved in TRE one way or the other. I have never been short it and I have never been long it. That being said, I didn't see that news article.
-
“Wow... umm. Sino forest postponed the analyst tour for their forests... the excuses they give are bullshit. This is really not a good sign.”
So Sino cancels the tour as they have something to hide? But if you read the story it plainly says.....
“Analysts confirmed that they advised the company to postpone the trip because it wouldn’t be helpful.”
So to be balanced, it was Sino’s tour, therefore only Sino could postpone it. However, it was the invited analysts that asked that the tour be delayed. It is a little misleading to suggest that Sino is doing it because they have something to hide. The analysts reasonably felt that it would make more sense to do a tour after the audit. Once that is in we should have a better idea of what is going on.
Yah, a company that is under the suspicion of massive fraud should certainly have their press releases taken at face value.
-
-
If it was so obvious/certain that airline stocks would underperform the broader market going forward, we could all be very rich men by shorting airline stocks and buying the S&P 500 in proportion. It's not that easy. That being said, I would never invest in an airline.
-
so unbelievably sketchy
-
Have you looked at his first book, though? I'm in the middle of reading it for the first time after seeing it highly recommended by people like Geoff Gannon and other value bloggers, and there's no magic formula so far in that one. It's all about analyzing spinoffs and merger equity offerings and such. Definitely over the head of the average investor, which is why he's been trying to make it easier and easier with each book, but interesting stuff for most on this forum, I bet.
You're talking about "You Can Be a Stock Market Genius", right? I thought it was dumbed down...sort of like Peter Lynch's "Beat the Street". Better than his two recent books, but I didn't really like it.
Yah his first book is probably the best value book in the last 20 years.
Not even close! Seth Klarman's "Margin of Safety" is hands-down the best investment book written in the last 20 years. Cheers!
Pff, Publisher: HarperCollins (October 1991)
I guess that wins.
Bruce Berkowitz on BAC
in General Discussion
Posted
Some people on this forum think WEB is some sort of God, and I don't mean in the figurative sense.
I can assure you, I've met him: He puts on his pants just the like the rest of us, one foot at a time.