Kraven

Are they as good as Canada's favorite son, Aldo Nova? I bet they can't beat Aldo's leopard skin outfit in the Fantasy video.

They opened the first Cabela's in Washington a couple of years ago, and I went in there. As a Canadian proponent of gun control, I've never felt more uncomfortable in my life! That is until I put that sweet 9mm Remington in my hand...I kid, I kid! ;D Say no to guns. Cheers! I knew a guy who worked a lot with the Cabela's people. I remember him telling me that when the first one opened it would cause traffic jams on the highway as people were going there. Here's a piece of trivia. Their credit card bank sub is the modestly named The World's Foremost Bank.

Happy Thanksgiving. Just taking a breather from the kids running around like maniacs and the crazy in-laws. I am sure no one knows what I'm talking about.

That's a fair question. Anything that I read and think is worthwhile or worth revisiting goes on my blog first. My blog is a collection of things that I'm in to - not just investment articles. I have the blog as an outlet for myself bc not a lot of folks where I live want to talk about value investing, or vinyl or proper cocktails or hard to find craft brew. It's another online storage place for those things for me and possibly a point of interesting interaction. I'm not living in the town from the movie Deliverance or anything, but I've gone from a major metro, to a significantly smaller place, but I still have my big city tastes. I post to the blog first for myself and then ill tweet it and if its relevant, post a link here on the board. I'm not against you having a blog but when you post them this way it seems like you are simply promoting your blog. You can still post this on your blog but instead of providing us with the blog link just give us the source link where you originally found the article. Good lord. The guy posts something that someone else hasn't yet and so what if it's on his blog. Cover your eyes and click through. Another option is you find it and post it next time. Here's a piece of advice. Look at the link. If you see it isn't direct to the source, then don't click on it since it offends you.

The good thing about history is that it can teach us something. I think I know of just the right situation. In season 2 of the Brady Bunch, the boys find a wallet in it with $1100. They plan to keep it for themselves, but then the girls want their cut. Mike and Carol insist they give it to the police in order to discover if anyone is looking for it. Right before the end of the 30 day period Mr and Mrs Stoner pick it up and stop by the house to give their thanks (from him and the missus) and give the kids a reward. After trying to give the kids $20 as a reward, they turn it down for $18 instead since that is easier to split 6 ways. The entire Brady family was thrilled that the Stoners got back their life savings and once again the Bradys taught us that it's better to do for others than ourselves. So there you go. It's all there and solves this dividend problem.

NTTAWWT

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other? Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined. By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc. What is average, good and great to you guys??? This doesn't look too super. :P http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX Somehow we're speaking a different language. You are focused on figuring out by what amount one must beat a certain yardstick in order to determine whether that person is a superinvestor. You are missing the point. Obviously some amount of success must be achieved and that entails beating the index what some amount. However, the term "superinvestor" embodies someone who performs the act of investing in securities. Someone who piggbacks on them is not an investor in the same respect. I am not sure what part of this is confusing. You have to do the act to be considered. It would seem that you're trying to imply, as Sanjeev said, that someone who invests in BRK is the same as Buffett. So by that definition I would gather the vast majority of this board is a superinvestor!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

From Northern Virginia - storm was heavy Monday night with some power outages. We were out for a day or so. The obvious flooding damage, trees down and that kind of thing, but power outages are minimal at this point. The storm moved faster out of the area than expected and I think the general sense is that while it was certainly severe, we dodged a bullet.

I just want people to be happy and have peace on earth.

Is it a crime against humanity or otherwise morally repugnant to own them all? Hell, I mean someone could actually have 4 or 5 positions. Ok, ok, that's crazy talk.

Most definitely better safe than sorry. We are preparing the best we can. Frankly, there's not much we can really do. After losing power every time there's a big storm, we assume we will lose power again and that it could be out for quite a while. Last storm my wife had just done a huge shopping and we lost hundreds of dollars in food. So this time we are obviously not doing that and trying to use whatever we can that's already in the fridge. We're just hoping for the best. Obviously it's not the most important thing or close to it, but hopefully Halloween won't be ruined for the kids. They've really been looking forward to it.

I am pretty sure the problem is that you used ;D, instead of the expected ;).

I'd trade that for an unopened case of 1988 Donruss baseball cards. Among all things that resulted from the 1980s bubble in sports cards, especially rookie cards and unopened cases/boxes, I can't think of a worse investment than anything related to 1988 Donruss. I am the proud owner of an unopened case (or 2) that has been sitting in my father's garage for almost 25 years. Oh man, that set was uglier than 1990 Donruss. Well done. Ugly in looks or ugly in value? It's got both of course, but the plainest, ugliest has got to be 1986 Topps. Of course my knowledge of cards ends as of about 1989-1990. My attempt at early mogulhood was very poorly executed. I do also have somewhere a fairly good amount of pristine Shawon Dunston rookies as well. Is he still the second coming?

I'd trade that for an unopened case of 1988 Donruss baseball cards. Among all things that resulted from the 1980s bubble in sports cards, especially rookie cards and unopened cases/boxes, I can't think of a worse investment than anything related to 1988 Donruss. I am the proud owner of an unopened case (or 2) that has been sitting in my father's garage for almost 25 years.

[email protected]

I would suggest baseball, football, basketball and hockey cards. They are an excellent investment for any situation that might befall us. Unopened cases and boxes from the late 1980s are particularly good. I like the ones that are bundled with a stick of gum which could be used as barter in an end of the world scenario no? Those sticks of gum could be used to build a shelter that I am virtually positive that no weapon yet developed could penetrate.

I would suggest baseball, football, basketball and hockey cards. They are an excellent investment for any situation that might befall us. Unopened cases and boxes from the late 1980s are particularly good.

Yea it's a bunch of bullshit. With this rule, the rich can get richer, while those of us who are not millionaires have less opportunity to become one. Similar to options trading rules. The rule may or may not be stupid, but it isn't intended to reflect whether or not someone knows anything about investing. Rather it is intended to separate those who are sophisticated from those who aren't. Those who are sophisticated, in the eyes of the law, are deemed to require less protection. It is a paternalistic requirement, but in many ways a good one. It has prevented many a small investor from getting snared in things they don't understand. Now you may feel it biases you unfairly and that may very well be true, but there has to be a bright line rule in which to effectuate the law. It would be administratively impossible to have a system in which each situation is determined on a case by case basis. So in your respective cases you may have been burdened, but there are plenty of people who may jump into a fund like this, no matter how good it is, and not understand that their money will be locked up for a period of time and a host of other issues. To answer your next question, yes of course this can happen to someone with more money as well, but in the eyes of the law at that point there is a bit of caveat emptor.

I think "money mind" came from Phil Carret. Another value guy who lived a very long life and was still investing until he was around 100 I believe.

It's discussed in his biographies. If memory serves, he was largely out of the market by that point except for the "permanent" holdings. After the crash he did what he does best. He went back to work and started scooping things up once there were bargains to be had. His reaction was very much the same as it was in 1974 and 2008.

God this article was awful. It had it all. No direction, incorrect facts, inconsistencies, etc. Here is a great line. "He [Pabrai] agrees with Charlie Munger that a diversified portfolio can be achieved with just four different stocks, but he thinks that is nowhere near enough." I get it. According to the author, he agrees with it even though he thinks its not even close. I always like someone who can act at the same time on both sides of an issue. Shows flexibility I guess.

Txitxo, I think we will have to agree to disagree. That's fine. It was an interesting debate and discussion. Correct me if I am wrong, but you think that he was tired and burn out of investing and that he was just rationalizing his laziness, because you implicitly assume that Graham and Dodd investing must necessarily produce better results that applying a mechanical formula. No, not at all. I have tried to make this point repeatedly. I BELIEVE Graham meant what he said when he said it. That is, that late in life he determined that a mechanical approach was superior. What I don't think is that OTHERS who are trying to find support for that premise (i.e. that mechanical investing is superior) have on their side significant evidence by referring to Graham. Why do I think this? He had spent a lifetime, approximately 40+ years to be exact (from around 1917 - late 1950s), preaching the gospel of individual security analysis. He wrote the bible, Security Analysis, and put out 3 versions during that time. He wrote countless articles earlier in his career on it. He then retires and more or less stops participating in the investing world. Then years later he all of a sudden re-emerges. He updates The Intelligent Investor, etc. His assertions that mechanical investing are superior are primarily (solely?) found in interviews included in the Institutional Investor and the oddly named Journal of Medical Economics. Perhaps a Financial Analysts Journal as well. So the basis by which you have determined that he essentially found Jesus late in life is due to around 15-20 pages of interviews in 2-3 magazines vs the hundreds or thousands of pages from earlier. While volume means nothing, I point it out simply to demonstrate that it isn't so cut and dried. I leave it at that. I do believe Graham's mechanical strategies are workable and can be successful, particularly with respect to net nets. I don't believe though that they are wonderful support for a purely mechanical approach.

Very interesting. In fact his memoir was spotty in certain areas. It was his book and he was willing to open up on various things, but not others. Strangely, he essentially stopped as of the mid-1950s in the description of his life. I also wasn't aware that Horizon tried to prove the 20%. I will need to look at that. At the end of the day I think we all tend to over emphasize our successes and minimize our failures. Look at Greenblatt's Magic Formula. Wes Gray, a professor who has a website that escapes me (but is working on a book with the Greenbackd guy), tried to prove the reported returns that Greenblatt provides and was unable to do so. If memory serves, they were no where close, although still very good.

As are you, my friend. First, I don't disparage the insights people get with old age. Not at all. You are right. He may have woken up after 50 years of believing in the possibility of individual security analysis and realized it was all a big waste of time. That is quite possible. I have never once said he didn't believe what it is he said. I think he did. My contention is simply that I don't think Graham circa 1974 is better support for mechanical investing vs Graham from approximately 1917-1960 being support for individual analysis. We will never be able to definitively know for sure which is right. You say you look at the facts. So do I, you just don't see them as facts. But let's turn it around a little. You contend that he achieved superior results in net nets. The entire value world has based this on a single statement Graham made to the effect that he "must have earned" about 20% a year on them. Let's imagine a different conversation: Interviewer: Mr. Ackman, what is your most successful approach to investing? Bill Ackman: Well, when we build a big position and take an activist role. We must have earned around 20% when we do that. Or, Interviewer: Mr. Einhorn, what do you attribute your success to? David Einhorn: Taking a large short position and publicizing it has done wonders for us. We must have earned around 20% when we do that. Facts, right? It IS a fact that Graham said he must have earned around 20%. But we don't know for sure whether it is a fact that he obtained those returns. To my knowledge no one has audited his financials and determined exactly what his returns in net nets were. Do I doubt they were superior? No. Do I think your argument is fact while mine relating to his position in life is not? No again. I am not speculating as to his different interests. This is a fact, just in the same way you use his own words to prove his returns. He stated on several occasions that he no longer was interested generally in the market. He also remarked about having the "standard pessimism" of an older individual. I have never speculated as to his beliefs. Those are your words. I have said repeatedly he believes what he said. My point is simply that it isn't good support for mechnical investing because a few random quotes late in life don't impair a lifetime of work. Maybe it can. I just don't believe it in this case based on the facts as I know them.