ScottHall

Schooling is a fraudulent transfer of wealth & money laundering scheme from working and wealthy Americans to liberal professors and educators who would otherwise not be capable of making it in the real world. In return, children are brainwashed to support Democrats and Democrat causes. This has been going on for decades. It's no wonder that the higher the level of education, the bigger a Democrat you are likely to be. Anything that takes away from public schools and gives to private or alternative solutions is good by me. I think it's so amazing that everyone is up in arms about the for-profit universities that figured out how to turn a profit off of a corrupt and horribly gamed system, and yet not a peep about the public of universities that provide education to millions of people who will never be able to pay back their student loans. At least the for-profits were honest about their intentions; but, classic Democrats, the real universities didn't want them shining a lot on the industry and figured that sending the Feds after them would be a good way to get competitors' mouths out of the trough at the same time. I have made to sure to vote against all of the funding measures on the California ballot as far as the schools are concerned; if I had my way there would be no money spent on public education. It is a waste that goes to fat cats, pension benefits and what amounts to a giant make-work project.

I think you guys are talking past each other.

WOW! I don't even know where to begin with this one. First you accuse Obama of bankrupting the country. Never mind the fact that when he took over the country was in a full blown financial crisis and now things don't look too bad. But then your cure to all that is to put Trump in charge in order to default on US bonds, which would be literally bankrupting the country. Nice thinking! It is clear to me that your reading comprehension skills are at a rudimentary level. I guess I should expect no less from a Hillary Clinton fan. I clearly said that Obama and Hillary are the cause of the national bankruptcy both here and on my YouTube review of Hillary's America. Donald Trump needs to be the man to clean up their big mess by navigating our own national bankruptcy, just as he has navigated so many bankruptcies of his own. No other candidate in this race knows 1/10th as much about financial restructurings. Not Hillary and certainly not for Gary ALLEPO Johnson.

I'm glad to see that you've watched my Review of Hillary's America and have come to the same conclusion about the fate of the country as I have. The liberals have had 8 years in charge and have nearly bankrupted the country in the process.We need someone with Donald Trump's experience in handling credit negotiations and skill in navigating bankruptcy to manage our impending national debt default that Obama has gotten us into. Donald Trump's skillset is very unique and it is also uniquely tailored to this nasty era in America's history. I don't think Hillary has what it takes to sit across the table from the Chineses and stare them straight in the eye and tell them, your bonds are worth zero and are only good as toilet paper from here on out. Trump has been to the rodeo enough times to be able to get the point across in a way that they'll know who is boss. If I owe $100k the bank owns me, if I owe $100 trillion I own the bank.

Bezos > Musk >>> Trump >>>>>> Watsa >> Biglari

I feel like the idea of punch card investing is another thing taken way too seriously, and was said by Buffett to say things in a way middle America can understand. I suspect he did not mean it literally, but it's a close enough approximation. I do think long term holding period is a critical factor in returns, and most people trade in and out of companies too frequently. Buffett is a world class thinker, and his marketing shtick of being a good midwestern boy has worked. He has everyone spinning yarn on him and from him; to earn a living standing on his coat tails, which he almost surely doesn't mind, as it only enshrines him deeper within the investing zeitgeist, from which he reaches with his tentacles only when ready to strike and gain greater influence and prestige. I respect Buffett and think he has much to teach us about the world. One of my all time favorites. But these things he says, I think are more of metaphors for Joe the Plumber and developing a more marketable character. See also that one time Bruce Berkowitz gave an unbelievably good analysis of Wells Fargo in the early '90s, to becoming the guy who says he "counts the cash." All of this is a form of marketing, Buffett as P.T. Barnum. Get with the program and learn from this man, but don't copy his style point-for-point. I would take it all as more of a guideline about how to build your own. Styles work for some people, and not for others. I invest in a lot of high growth, high multiple companies. It's worked out very well for me. But it's not for everyone; has its own set of ups and downs, and just unpalatable to some people. It doesn't matter if it works for me if it fails when you try it because you can't build a portfolio in a style that clashes with your personality. And another thing to keep in mind, is that this isn't like at UFC 1 anymore with Ben Graham playing Royce Gracie. The world has changed a lot and traditional value is not the only style that works anymore. Some people are incredibly successful with traditional value. I love the work of some of the online value investing community; Oddball Stocks is great. Nate Tobik is kind what I would call a more traditional value guy, who does very well by it. One of my former employers, David Gardner, was excellent with growth investments but wasn't a very good value guy, just didn't work for him if I recall right. Still made a killing with his growth style, even through the crash; has a >100x on an Amazon stake now that he's held for decades. The point is that different people have different styles, and different people can achieve success using many different types of styles. You don't need to run a pure style, either. I have a lot of high growth names, but also some really deep value plays and community banks. The key thing to understand is, you can have different styles in investing, but in each of those bags... you have investments that are situational in nature. And each situation is unique; one 100x P/E company isn't necessarily another 100x P/E company. One company trading for less than net cash isn't the same as another company trading for less than net cash. Whatever type of investor you identify as, or whatever type of style you practice, I think it's important to consider that investments are situational! Whatever style bag you place a situation in, you have to remember that some of the situations in all of the style bags are just lousy. There might be a greater percentage that are lousy in one style bag over the other at any given time, but some will always be bad. And some will always be good. If you can train your nose to hunt for these situations that might be good, even though you're outside of your own style bag, you can make some pretty good money and improve your own analytical skills over time. In my case it helped me completely transform my style from traditional value-exclusive to primarily "growth" oriented. I will say Buffett is a good starting off point for thinking about this, as he basically changed how value investing was strictly defined. All of us, in a sense, are value investors. I know no growth investor who willingly overpays for shares of a company; they just have different concepts and ideas about the value of a company than many. But beyond that loose definition, Buffett moved value quite a bit away from a lot of the more rigid stuff Ben Graham talked about. I think this really created two camps, the more traditional value people, and and the new aged Buffett people who, let's call them sort of GARPy, focusing on moats, whatever. I hate to say it, but there are a lot of the traditional value people (Graham value hounds) who are not really accepting of other forms of investing, including Buffett value, and often do view anything outside of the hard numbers as intellectually circumspect. Not all traditional value guys are like this, far from it. But there are more to my eye than in the other styles of investing. Just sort of seeing the history and how the family tree of value investing split is a good example of the evolution of investing concepts through time; Graham more-or-less created the craft, Buffett improved on Graham, and then... ? Seems like there aren't a lot of value people who have radically improved on the Buffett style, in the same mold. The Buffett style is good, but is it so good to assume that it shouldn't be improved upon? To me, the answer is obviously that we should try to improve upon it by taking what we can from the other styles of investing. If Buffett "knew" how to invest in tech, look how much better Berkshire's portfolio would have done over the past 10 years. I think you can take the same sorts of concepts that Buffett discusses about investing generally - moats, for example - and learn how they fit in technology. You could have seen Google coming, and probably been more likely to see past the sky high IPO P/E and invest anyway. Or certainly after a couple years of public market time, to then get on board. That is one that that can be improved on in Buffett's style that I see; being able to use a more modern perception of the world to aid in the relative "unpredictability" of tech and other high-growth stocks. I have no doubt there are more.

Yes, probably.

(1) Everyone in the industry uses mailing lists for at least part of their business. There are there are three ways to get them. The first one is to do it organically, by writing content people want to see and capturing e-mail addresses on your website. The benefit of this is that, if you're doing this yourself, it's essentially free and the leads are high quality. However, it's not really something you can scale. The second method is advertising, but this is a dangerous game, because if your copy isn't strong you won't earn back what you spend and you can lose a small fortune on a bad ad. The big boys in DRM can afford missing shots; as an independent, you really need your ads to work. Additionally, prospects acquired from advertisement are generally considered not as valuable as prospects you reach organically. They'll probably have less interest in the subject matter to begin with. This can lead to all sorts of negative outcomes, which make forecasting profitability more difficult. You also don't really know if you're going to break even until post-sale, which is a scary prospect when you're talking about putting up maybe tens of thousands of dollars to get a good sample. The third type is list rentals. These can be very lucrative if you strike a good deal, but the quality of the list you rent can be a real crapshoot. You might make back multiples of your cost, or the list may be so heavily marketed to and so combed over that it's completely worthless. I can't really give specifics about any company I've worked for, but this is how DRM works generally. There have been articles written about it in the past that are pretty close to the truth. (2) I can't comment on TMF's copy, or any copy of any company I've worked for. However, what you're describing is typical and also a typical reaction from an outsider. These ads don't work on everybody, not even close. But it's industry standard for a reason, and I mean that far beyond just investment newsletters. That's all I really want to say about that. (3) If you have significant financial obligations, you've already screwed up. Most people fuck up by going to college and taking student loans. College is a scam. Then they get married, which isn't necessarily a bad idea. Then they have kids, which is an even bigger scam. If you want to live like I do, you have to avoid responsibility like a plague. The reason I've always been able to tell my bosses to go fuck themselves is because I've never needed them. The more financial responsibilities you have, the more you need your bosses, and the more of a wage slave you become. Don't go to college (unless free/cheap vs. income prospects), don't have kids, don't have a mortgage (or maybe do if you live in a nonrecourse state), don't have credit card debt. Don't have furniture, avoid vehicle ownership if at all possible, and enjoy your life.

One other thing. Other than reading existing packages that have done well, one thing that is helpful for learning how to sell is watching old professional wrestling promos. Vince McMahon and a lot of old timey wrestlers have great DRM minds. It's true even now, but back before PPV in the territory system they had to talk people into the building or else there wasn't gonna be any money to get paid. UFC is sort of the opposite. Only a handful of guys really know how to talk in that business. Fortunately, the promoter is one of them. They're easier to point out though, because there are so few of them: Chael Sonnen and Conor McGregor come to mind.

Hi Stevie, I was working at the Motley Fool at the time, and asked to learn more about our advertising from a couple of friends who were proven DRM copywriters who worked at the company. They taught me the basics, and then I entered a copywriting tournament the company was having to test myself. I ended up beating 7 or 8 other people and won the tournament. That was my entry to this side of the marketing industry. You can get something to sell all sorts of places. You can sell physical goods if you want; Agora sells razors, for example, and a lot of companies sell supplements and other such things. You can also sell what are called invisible products; these are your newsletters of various sorts, for example. Investment newsletters, health newsletters, dating newsletters. Whatever you can conjure up in your head, really. You can sell pretty much anything if you're a good enough story teller. I work on the invisible products side of the industry. You can also work TV if you want; infomercials are just another form of DRM. You can sell power juicers, snuggies, late night real estate scams courses. Whatever. How do I do it casually? Contacts, basically. I know a few major players in the industry and they'll occasionally offer me work; I don't actively seek it out, because I don't want a full time job. It's sort of like how I imagine Hollywood to be. The easiest way to get in is to be in. There is a whole cottage industry for selling seminars about how to be a copywriter. A lot of people want to do it and are willing to shell out to find out how. I kind of stumbled into the industry by working for a company in the industry, in a non-copy role, and making friends with those who were in copy roles. It's also possible to start your own DRM business and write copy for yourself, but unless you know what you're doing, you're going to lose a lot of money. Most people don't know how to sell in the manner required in this business.

I like Berkshire generally, and have no strong feelings about the other two. DRM copywriters write great, big ads trying to sell you stuff you've never heard about and never knew you wanted. It's direct response marketing (DRM) as opposed to traditional copywriting (brand). I didn't say anything about investing directly making you money... there are ways to make money from your "skills" without actually needing them to be cash generative in and of themselves. Nothing is stopping me from writing DRM copy; I do so now, casually, but my skill level isn't as high as it would be if I'd focused on that instead. No. I don't use screeners. Yes, I have. :)

This is 100% true.

I think that's a smart way to look at it. I've beat the market since I've started, and yet, the amount of wealth I've generated pales into comparison to if I had just started training as a DRM copywriter from the start with all that time. Yes.

Somehow I forgot about these. Thanks for the compliment. I may do another one at some point; right now I am focusing on shorter videos that tell my life stories. They're much quicker to create, and are on another channel. The WWE video took forever to edit in post production. I'll probably do another one again sometime, but the amount of time it took was unreal. Hours for each minute of video, because I am very new to editing. Sold awhile back; coworker pitch. Thanks! All of my current publicly traded stock holdings, in alphabetical order: AMZN, AOSDF, CNSWF, CTSH, FB, FIZZ, FSBW, GOOG, IDWM, LBTYK, LSXMK, MAR, MIDD, MKL, NTDOY, OSHC, PDER, PRLB, SFTBY, STRZ (not Starz), VRX, W, WFC-WT. A few of those are just 1 share positions that are leftover from something to do with my previous job, but only a few. 20 of them are real positions, or so. "Mutually separated" from my previous employer back in April, now working for an affiliate of the other major company in our industry for fun while I wait for a few irons I have in the fire to be ready. I've been reading Billion Dollar Kiss recently, and I find it to be very insightful into the TV business. I've been making some videos for fun, but not business oriented ones. Thinking of moving from where I am now. Not a whole lot that's incredibly exciting is going on. I have a great marketing campaign in my head that I'm ready to unleash. Other than that, just enjoying my "retirement" before I have to really start putting some effort into work again in the next few months. I love the obsession among investors with starting hedge funds. I guess if that's your dream, that's great, but there are much better ways to make money from a person's supposed investing acumen if you're not a major league fund manager. Active investing is kind of a game for idiots, unless you're already rich. Wish I figured that out earlier in my life. There is such a thing as the opportunity cost of time and relatively small capital bases fuck you on that. And by small, I mean anything in, say, the single digit millions.

Why? It's better to be optimistic about these things than pessimistic; even if you get a lot of zeroes you also hit crazy multibaggers part of the time. Obviously Theranos isn't public, but the same principle applies. Doubters and minor-league thinkers don't really accomplish anything. People like Elizabeth Holmes are the ones who move the world forward, for better or worse. These comments are why this thread is funny. Committing fraud, lying, and endangering people's health along is how we move the world forward? She is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur who fooled millions of people, and looks like she is still doing it. The Bernie Madoff of startups. How did she endanger people's health? It sounds like she was using competitors tests for the vast majority of her company's results. You're probably one of those guys who think of Martin Shkreli and Valeant as bad guys as opposed to the national heroes they are. Typical liberals!

Why? It's better to be optimistic about these things than pessimistic; even if you get a lot of zeroes you also hit crazy multibaggers part of the time. Obviously Theranos isn't public, but the same principle applies. Doubters and minor-league thinkers don't really accomplish anything. People like Elizabeth Holmes are the ones who move the world forward, for better or worse.

He's been buying local newspaper assets, and traded Graham Holdings shares for a TV station, so it's not like he's so revolted he's stopped entirely. Those are probably more of "special situations" than a general philosophy, though.

I think we need more consumption of drugs, not less. They can be very creatively stimulating for those in fields where that is a benefit.

I love pot.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to have a PACER account. I have one and I don't have a high school degree, let alone a law degree.

Eight years of Obama have brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy. The Fed is required to manipulate interest rates and keep them low in order to stave off a national default, which will only lead to China foreclosing on the White House. Is it possible that Ben Bernanke has become a secret agent of the CIA to orchestrate Brexit and keep bond yields low? Donald Trump is the only man in the race to have navigated bankruptcy four times in his business enterprises. He knows the laws like the back of his hand, and he is the man we need to help navigate America's Chapter 11 filing.Having spent decades working as a restructuring advisor and distressed debt investor, it is no wonder Wilbur Ross is supporting Donald Trump. He sees what I see: a man with unparalleled experience in business restructuring when America needs restructuring the most in its history. Perhaps Donald will hire Wilbur on as the official advisor to the United States when the bankruptcy begins. Who else but he and Eddie Lampert have the bankruptcy qualifications to match Donald?

What I hear in this thread is a bunch of malarkey from would-be elite blowhards. Real America is hurting and Donald Trump is the only man who can save us now. I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLt-0vLPZ3Q

That makes sense to me. Sorry for the confusion.

The article makes me think about our industry (investing). It is much harder these days to find lasting businesses. There are a few other examples of these disruptors. Casper in mattresses Blue Nile in diamond rings Warby Parker in glasses I'd argue that network type of business are actually lasting business that will go on for a long time. It seems that the network effect has given them a competitive advantage that allows them to have margins way above normal businesses. I don't invest in anything above a PE of 20 but I do think the Googles and Facebooks of this world are much more lasting than low PE investors like me are ready to admit. Regards BeerBaron Do they have pricing power? IMHO relatively little Are there high switching costs? IMHO relatively little Have you ever worked in direct response marketing? What you are saying is crazy as the industry exists today, at any reasonable scale. There are other players but Google and FB are huge, and must-haves if you want to maximize your distribution.

Berkshire is a perfectly acceptable place to park money but anyone buying in expecting anything close to historical will be sorely disappointed. May still beat the market by a few points a year over the very long run, though.