fenris

Most valuable comment in this thread so far. If you can figure out how to give institutional investors something they don't have already, that can make a difference in their performance, you have potential for at least a solid small business. Probably one that you can sell to a larger player once you have established a client base. People did it for different types of SEC filings (ie. insiders, holders, extracting/scraping financial data, governance), bank/insurance/utility regulatory filings, bankruptcy court filings etc. Heck, people sell mall traffic data and oil tank storage readings. If you find a source of valuable information others are not aware of - or you if you find a better way of presenting/analyzing the existing data - you have a fighting chance to build a business.

Per your link: "Price to earnings ratio, based on trailing twelve month “as reported” I believe the conversation centered around the "current year" (2014) 16-handle number which should be a composite of 2014 analyst estimates (and hence adjusted for one-offs etc).

:-X .. And this is exactly what happened (to date). Russia chose the 'Special War' first but now it is intervening directly.

Please, let's take a look at Oaktree and the number of its portfolio managers. http://www.oaktreecapital.com/people/portfolio-managers.aspx Now let's take a look at their 'strategies' (read: funds): http://www.oaktreecapital.com/strategies/ Public equities are $3.4bn of the total of $91bn in AUM: http://www.oaktreecapital.com/about/ The consolidated Oaktree 13F does not represent the "Howard Marks portfolio". It represents the equity & equity-linked holdings of a large, diversified credit and distressed alternative asset management firm with a variety of funds, strategies and managers. Marks may be the voice and face of Oaktree, but he is not picking the stocks here.. A good chunk of the US equities (unless they are debt related and part of one of the distressed funds) was probably selected by this team: http://www.oaktreecapital.com/people/team.aspx?cat=listed-equities&t=value-equities

Credit panel is always excellent. Some of the smartest people in the business and Milken himself.

Not sure if this has been posted before, just came across the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/66429709/John-Hempton-Fairfax-Financial-V-SAC-unsealed-emails-communications

Love it 8)

Apparel retail and casual dining (deadly combo: middle class consumer squeeze and decline of brick and mortar)

I think a move into Eastern Ukraine is more likely than not. By no means is it certain, but I think it's likely. After Crimea, the remainder of Ukraine is gravitating towards the EU and NATO for support and protection. In my mind Russia has two options: address this now, while Ukraine is still a mess, or fight a covert proxy war with NATO with the aim of destabilizing Ukraine and getting it back into the Russian sphere of influence. The latter seems risky and if it proves unsuccessful it may still lead to a full scale military operation at a later time. It ultimately boils down to risks and costs. What are the risks and costs of 'liberating' Eastern Ukraine today vs. it becoming a NATO outpost tomorrow? Lastly: during the last few days of the Sochi Olympics, right before the stealth invasion of Crimea, there was an increasing stream of video snippets (mostly cell phone video or cash dashcam) from Russia showing columns of trucks and APCs. In the last few days similar videos have surfaced, supposedly from the border region with Ukraine. This time the videos are showing tanks, artillery and other heavy metal. This may well be false information, I have no way of verifying its accuracy. But all signs that I see show that trouble is brewing - hence I am on guard. Maybe everything will blow over, I'd certainly hope so.

I believe they have that for bags, watches and art. Might work for expensive shoes. http://www.bagborroworsteal.com/howitworks https://hautevault.com/rent-mens-watches

It's more likely that the planned Tesla Gigafactory will mine the remaining Bitcoin. You can discount that future cash balance and pretty much get the car business for free.. ::) In all seriousness, what bothered me about the quote was the word "white," as if that had anything to do with the point Andreessen was trying to make.

"U.S. Small-Cap Rally Sends Valuation 26% Above 1990s" "As prices surged and earnings increased at a slower rate than analysts anticipated, smaller companies have become more expensive than they’ve been 86 percent of the time since 1995" "The Russell 2000 is trading for 49 times reported earnings, compared with a multiple of 39 in March 2000" "The outperformance accelerated this year even as earnings growth trailed large-caps. Profits from Russell 2000 companies climbed 6.8 percent in the last quarter, compared with 8.6 percent in the S&P 500. While bigger companies exceeded analysts’ estimates by a combined 4.6 percent, smaller firms missed by 13 percent, data compiled by Bloomberg show." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-24/record-rally-in-u-s-small-caps-sends-valuation-26-above-1990s.html

Why do you think that?

That I doubt. There may be less or no more buying for a while but if the Chinese economy goes sideways for a while heads will roll and having premium property outside the country is the true "safe haven". I highly doubt the property would be sold for the cash to flow back to China.

What do you mean by "functionally illiterate"?

I agree that teaching financial literacy is helpful and necessary. But in the end most people don't want to hear or know the truth. They want their cake and they want it now. They value pleasure and convenience now higher than the uncertain benefit from saving for the future. They have the tools to do so (consumer credit) and they find encouragement and confirmation in the media and their peer group. It can be quite difficult and painful to break these habits and establish a different mindset. It is possible, of course, but not only does it mean delaying the gratification that used to be instantaneous, it also means acting differently than your peer group. It creates a kind of dissonance with the values and actions of a lot of your friends.

Have you thought about what it means to "defend Ukraine's sovereignty"? We are talking about a country which they used to call "little Russia" a century ago. And you think the EU and US would draw the line here, on Russia's front porch, and threaten to go to war over it? What would they have to gain and would it justify the risks? Should the US have some jets circle over Ukraine to project force? What if one got shot down? This is a high stakes game with potentially terrible outcomes and it's very easy to maneuver yourself into a corner. Best not to buy into the game if you're not prepared to see it through to the end (which nobody in the West is). I can guarantee you every actor in this play has carefully considered what they are willing to wager. And Putin's conclusion has been he can make a move. That should tell you all you need to know. I would also reiterate that Crimea is a sideshow because it's pretty clear that it's Russian now and will remain so (nobody can force them to leave by force and they will get a majority of the people to vote to split from Ukraine). The real question is what will happen to Ukraine East of the Dnieper river (and Kiev which sits on top of it..).

What about it? Do you think the US will go to war with Russia over Ukraine because of a treaty? Do you think the EU will? I think if/when Russia makes a move on Eastern Ukraine, the West will get serious with economic sanctions to put pressure on Russia's oligarchs. What else could they do?

Crimea is a done deal. It is de facto Russian (both in terms of military presence after the stealth invasion and because a large share of the population is Russian) and will not come back. I don't know whether the Ukrainian troops there will fight or not but it makes no difference. A Ukraine that is not tightly aligned with (and dependent on) Russia will inevitably gravitate to the EU/US/NATO. Irrespective of whether it will turn out to be a democracy or a fascist/right-wing autocracy. It would be foolish to think that Russia could possibly allow NATO to have a beachhead some 500 kilometers from Moscow (ie. Northeastern Ukrainian border) without fighting tooth and nails. In my mind, the most likely outcome is a split of Ukraine along the Dnieper river with the Eastern part either becoming a part of Russia or becoming a Belarus-style satellite. While the Russians skillfully used the chaos in Ukraine to occupy Crimea, capturing Eastern Ukraine will likely require full scale warfare (not certain but I think it's more likely than not, unless there will be a political process for these regions to split from Ukraine). Looking at each actor and the incentives, it becomes clear that there is little that "the West" can do to change this outcome. Engaging in conventional warfare in Ukraine offers very little reward for EU/US/NATO and very high risks. One could target Russian oligarchs and business interests but I doubt this would keep the Russians from at least seizing Eastern Ukraine and one has to keep in mind that Central Europe is dependent on the gas (as much as Russia is dependent on the export revenue). The only feasible involvement could be for foreign troops to be stationed in Western Ukraine to protect the integrity of that portion of the country while allowing Russia to claim Crimea & the Eastern portion. Maybe the Polish will be bold enough to get involved in that way. Either way, it exposes the core EU countries as weak and might lead to changes in the medium/long-term strategic thinking and military spend. It is also conceivable that Ukraine will leverage the pipelines which are Russia's key revenue source. The threat of blowing up the pipes on a large scale might keep the Russians east of the river.

Looks interesting. I would also recommend https://www.bamsec.com/ as a quick way to parse through a company's filings.

He is an interesting guy, very oldschool. Recommend reading his letters to Landis of SVVC to get a sense of how he thinks (should be on seekingalpha and in the 13Ds).

M&A first, now investment management at a family office.

2008 top: ~$95 2010 bottom: ~$56 One can argue about how much intrinsic value is really fluctuating. But it doesn't look anything like a cash alternative to me.

From the same blog: The Single Greatest Predictor of Future Stock Market Returns http://philosophicaleconomics.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/the-single-greatest-predictor-of-future-stock-market-returns/ "The metric in this chart takes no input from any variables traditionally associated with valuation: earnings, book values, profit margins, discount rates, etc. It consists only of a simple ratio between a few numbers that can easily be calculated in FRED. Yet, as a predictor of future stock market returns, it dramatically outperforms all other stock market valuation metrics commonly cited"

Fixing the Shiller CAPE: Accounting, Dividends, and the Permanently High Plateau http://philosophicaleconomics.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/shiller/ Adjustment for goodwill impairments (and other items though not discussed by the author): "With the S&P at 1775, the GAAP CAPE is currently at 24.51, a frightening 60% above its historical (130 year) average of 15.30. The Pro-Forma CAPE, in contrast, is currently at 20.63, a more modest 19% above its historical (59 year) average of 17.35. To be fair, the Pro-Forma data doesn’t extend past 1954, and so the Pro-Forma CAPE average doesn’t include the depressed valuations of WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2, as the GAAP CAPE average does. But in terms of accuracy, that’s a good thing. As we’ll see later, the market dynamics of those eras are of little relevance to the present era." Impact of dividend payout ratio: "The structure of the Shiller CAPE unfairly penalizes the corporate sector for reinvesting profit into EPS growth instead of paying dividends. But that is exactly what modern corporations do in comparison to corporations of the past: they provide a return to their shareholders by reinvesting profit rather than by distributing it. From 1954 to 1995, the S&P 500 dividend payout ratio averaged 52%, while the real EPS growth rate averaged 1.72%. From 1995 to 2013, the S&P 500 dividend payout ratio averaged 34%, while the real EPS growth rate averaged 4.9%."