Liberty

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. "Big sell"?

100% equities That's it :D I always wish I kept more cash, but I run a very concentrated portfolio, and when one of the few businesses I like enough to buy gets really cheap, I can't resist piling on. Guess we all have our weaknesses...

Yeah, I don't think the "bet it all" should be taken literally - and I kinda doubt that even Rothstein did that - but it goes back to Munger/Buffett and how, when you are sure enough something is a really great opportunity and you've really done your homework, don't put 5% on it... Great opportunities don't come by everyday, so get the most of them. At some point I think Buffett had 75% in GEICO...

:) Mostly, I completely endorse the process. However, Roshtein died young most probably killed for debts after a cold gambling streak. Also, he will be forever associated with the Black Sox scandal. You have to know when to retire. But Eric's last comment is not a comment from a compulsive gambler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Rothstein I took it to be a compliment based on that scene you linked to rather than to the whole life of Rothstein; I like how he talks about waiting for the right moment, and when the odds are heavily in your favor, to bet big, and when there's 'no play', to just work on improving your skills, marshall your resources, makes plans, etc.. Very Munger and Buffett-esque, in a way (except in gambling rather than in investing).

You take it back? I thought it was a compliment. Guess I misunderstood you :)

I haven't followed FFH's numbers closely for a while, but I think that you have to look at all those versus the equity number. If you have around 8B of equity for 24B of total assets, this means that a relatively small shock to the total assets could wipe out a large fraction of the equity, and they need to maintain a certain equity ratio for their insurance obligations. Someone else please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks for posting it.

Thanks. I'm just trying to apply Buffett's look-through earnings concept to other things (something that others here are also doing -- nothing original about my way of doing things). For example, I look at the leverage (or lack thereof) of the businesses in my portfolio as if it was my own. About FFH, I think Parsad has written very insightful things about their position. I tend to agree with him that their hedged position isn't exactly an 'offensive' position ("we know everything's going to hell and we're going to profit from it like we did in the GFC!") but rather a 'defensive' shift to neutral because of their capital needs as a levered insurance company. They just can't afford big shocks, so I think they're just waiting for either the storm to hit so they can deploy capital at cheaper valuations, or for the clouds to pass so they can go back to doing the kind of investing they've always done without quite as much macro incertitude. I think it's very very smart for them to do, though there are also other ways to be defensive in this environment.

I've been considering buying a few shares of SpaceX when it IPOs just for the principle, not so much as an investment :D I think Tesla has a good chance of succeeding over the long term, but they don't fit my investment criteria on many levels. I'd rather buy one of their cars someday than buy shares 8)

I thought it was mildly-interesting. Not really my style, I guess.. He seems more into short-term macro trading, at least from that interview. I was not familiar with him. But thanks for posting, always good to hear different points of view and approaches.

Not quite, though. There's no such thing as a free lunch. People are still paying for the expensive phones, they're just amortized over a 2-year contract or whatever instead of being paid all upfront. It's a cosmetic difference that, sadly, seems to fool most people into buying stuff they can't afford (same when people fixate on the monthly cost of buying a car or a house rather than the total cost). I know you know this, I just felt like venting a bit about the general state of financial illiteracy in the world :)

Which is why I won't even look at the miners. That business is too hard. I prefer either service companies that sell picks & shovels to miners (I'd rather be the guy selling shovels than the guy buying them, so to speak), or royalty/streaming companies that are basically merchant banks with options on the upside if things go better than planned and downside protection if things go south (they are not responsible for any capex after initial investment).

Eric, sorry if you've addressed this elsewhere, but I'm curious to know what is your view on how all this QE stuff will impact financial institutions (like BAC) that own lots of financial assets denominated in dollars. I have a few guesses, but I'd love your insights.. f.ex. 1) It's bad for BAC because it makes all their fixed rate assets worth less, but the margin of safety in the price is so big that it doesn't matter too much, and if this jolt helps revive animal spirits in the economy, it might be good for BAC on balance. 2) Maybe it's good for BAC in a direct manner. Can they unload some crap from their balance sheet to the federal reserve? 3) ???

I think we'll need this thread now..

I don't think you necessarily have to be defensive at that level. For example, someone who owns berkshire owns a company that should do well in a bad environment because they have a strong balance sheet and the ability to benefit from bargains. I don't plan on shorting stocks, but I like buying companies that are run in such a way that they can survive and thrive in difficult times (if not thrive immediately, at least come out stronger than their competitors because they acquired good assets in fire sales and such).

I just finished watching the keynote video and I liked what I saw. I'm sure it'll sell really well.

Didn't Ericopoly just say in the other thread that he did 110% on what I assume to be a few millions?

Every time I see a photo of him I immediately think of Steven Pinker. It's probably the reason why I noticed him in the first place, actually..

Blurb: Mining and entertainment mogul Frank Giustra in conversation with Tommy Humphreys - August 28th, 2012. Topics include inflation, natural resources and wealth creation.

Thanks guys. I know he's also a friend of Kuppy, who's stuff I tend to like (he's cool-headed and even-handed about things, with many useful insight). I want to figure out if Fleckenstein is similar, or if he's more of a one-note doomer. I'm trying to follow sources with all kinds of inclinations to hopefully get more of the full picture, and who knows, maybe he could be one of those. Not sure yet though, but thanks for the pointers :)

Hetero prisoners don't become gay, they just sometimes sleep with other men because their options are rather limited for very long periods of time, and in some situations sex can be used as a weapon (it has been in all wars throughout history, and not always man on woman). That's not the same thing at all as becoming gay. I'm pretty sure that if they had a choice, they'd sleep with a woman (and they do when they come out). For example, if I had sex with a man right now, either willingly or by force, it wouldn't make me gay. I'd still be attracted to women. I'm pretty sure that same would be the case for you. Don't confuse the act and the sexual orientation/attraction. Of course, some prisoners are gay to begin with and when they come out they are still gay. But if you have a closeted gay man who has sex with a woman for years and even has kids, that doesn't make him straight either. In other words, sometimes heterosexual people can have gay sex and homosexual people can have heterosexual sex. That doesn't change their sexual orientation. In fact, as far as I know most gays report that their first sexual experience is with someone of the opposite sex (though I'm quoting from memory, so I could be wrong on that -- maybe it depends on where they live (rural vs big city)).

Hey, So this name has been popping in a few conference calls I've listened to and on a few websites I've been reading. I found some of his free articles and also his paying newsletter. https://www.fleckensteincapital.com/index.aspx I just want to do a quick reputation check here: Any of you familiar with him? What do you think? Anyone subscribes to the newsletter and can comment? I'm not endorsing him or his ideas by asking this, I'm just curious about him. I haven't heard/read enough to know either way... Thanks!

Well, as long as you refrain from judging others...

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread: Not that the why or how is that relevant once it's there. I mean, it's interesting to know, but even if you don't know, it's still there and the question becomes 'what do you do?', to which I answered: Imagine you were gay, then ask yourself how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-boom-in-oil-production-spells-peril-for-canadian-crude/article4535525/ These are only projections of course - it would be interesting to go back 10 years and see what they were saying would be happening today - but still interesting.