VAL9000

I think the spirit of the definition is that you want to capture a reasonable picture of what the true ongoing expenses to the business are. That's why you back out depreciation/amortization but include average CapEx. CapEx is lumpy but a necessary cost to running a business. If you just look at depreciation/amortization then you will get an unrealistic picture of cash outlay due to the rules associated with recognizing these items. So "certain other non-cash charges" is asking - are these non-cash charges actually associated with real, on-going cash outlay, or are they not? If they are not, then don't consider them as vital to running the business, and therefore they shouldn't impact owner earnings. If they are, then include them as an on-going average cost. Thinking of Microsoft, I would include all of the stupid acquisitions and eventual write-downs as an on-going cost. Not because they necessarily need to keep spending billions every year to keep their moat, but because they do anyway. So, that's the cost of "owning" Microsoft, and therefore impacts owner earnings.

I think you're overlooking the possibility that people who smoke pot simply don't flaunt it. There is a social stigma associated with marijuana use - mainly that the majority of people believe that smoking pot makes you stupid/lazy/etc. Plus it's illegal substance. For what benefit would I share my recreational use with you, someone who clearly has a severe view point on marijuana use? I smoke pot on occasion. So does my business partner. We built a company from nothing into a multi-million dollar business - in our mid 20s through early 30s. Now you can stop believing that people who smoke pot aren't ambitious. Maybe they are just cautious. You did get one thing right - I wouldn't be caught dead in a country club.

Eat the street food. Take the $2 train from Bangkok to Ayutthaya for a day trip. Don't pet the dogs.

Go niche. Reduce the market to such a small and narrow subset that your competitors can't be bothered to react and that your value proposition is much more focused and specific. You can charge a premium because you are delivering exactly what your customers want, rather than a broader set of services that they may or may not want. Once you've saturated the niche market you can expand to other, related markets. The best book I ever read on this subject was The Discipline of Market Leaders: http://www.amazon.com/The-Discipline-Market-Leaders-Customers/dp/0201407191

This works pretty well: https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&q=site%3Acornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca+ericopoly+BAC You can use the "search tools" drop down to narrow the content timeframe, too.

LOL - this way Parsad can't give us a Time Out cause that's "contrapment".

Agreed. Don't like something, don't click on it. Parsad can moderate when people go over the line; he's been a wise leader so far and has created the best investing community on the net. Creating some ghetto within the forum is pointless. Next we'll have someone who wants a separate board for banks and then telecoms and retail such and that'll just make discovery and cross-pollination harder (making life easier for the subset of users who use RSS and don't want to see tech isn't worth making life harder for the vast majority of users who come to the website and already have many different sub-boards to monitor -- and if we look at the number of views on the tech threads, there is obviously a huge interest, these views don't all come from the 15 people who post). I agree that Parsad has done a great job, but there is always room for improvement. The amount of moderation he has to perform is proof to me that those of us fighting it out on the tech threads "can't have nice things". Primarily this is about web users. I don't use RSS and I would see this change as a huge benefit. The problem is that these threads have a very low signal to noise ratio. This dilutes the quality of the rest of the site. A lot of content gets buried under "AAPL.., AAPL.., AAPL.., AAPL.., AAPL.. " in the Recent Posts scroll which makes discovery more difficult. Because there is already a ton of noise in these threads, one can easily argue that the threads are already a ghetto. To your point about other sub groups, there is already a precedent in that BRK and FFH both have their own boards. I believe that there is wide consensus that the tech threads are structurally different than most other threads in the Investment Ideas group. Probably because they are more growth-oriented than value oriented. The conversation revolves much more around predictions and opinions vs. numerical fact. To Jeff's point about the cleaned up behaviour on the board, I think this is temporary. This happens every once in a while. Parsad puts us in Time Out, we're good for a couple of weeks, and then we resort to old habits. Besides, if this doesn't work well, we can always change it back. What is the harm in a little experimentation?

In light of the TWTR thread devolving into the same old story (in record time!) I'd like to float the following proposal: 1. Create a new Discussion Group (similar to Investment Ideas) called Tech Investment Ideas 2. Move GOOG, AAPL, ORCL, BBRY, TWTR, etc. to that group. 3. Remove the Tech Investment Ideas discussion group from the "Recent Posts" scroll to keep the broader site content from being overrun with squabbles. Invariably the tech threads flare up on a weekly basis now. It's distracting and low value. Might as well accept it and use the tools we have to minimize the impact on the site. RSS subscribers can add the Tech Investment Ideas RSS feed to get the info if they want. Web users can still navigate to the tech threads area. The only real impact (from what I've thought through) is that the noise from the tech threads is contained. I like this idea because the tech threads can run wild without attracting the attention of users trying to contain the threads. What do you guys think? Tweaks?

You can do a lot when you charge $2 for a cup of coffee. Add that coffee is addictive Add that Starbucks are everywhere Add that all Starbucks offer the same thing Looks like a pretty good moat if you ask me Let's flip the question - how could you beat Starbucks? I'd start with figuring out how to make the coffee taste even better and hit 'em where it hurts. Non-coffee drinkers are missing out IMO.

A theory I heard yesterday that seems plausible is that home buyers are speeding up sales activity because they expect rates to rise in the near term. A lot of buyers are taking advantage of record-low 30 year mortgage rates - moving upmarket today while they can lock in at a competitive rate. As the rates come up, the price rise should stall out, or potentially reverse.

Thanks so helpful.

I think more specifically the bubble is forming in ETF's - basically the S&P 500 index. It's still early, but I noticed over the past couple of years everybody who I talk to about personal finance says "you should definitely be in ETFs" for a number of reasons. Generally I agree with the reasons, but whenever everybody says the same thing ("gotta be in tech", "gotta be in real estate", "gotta be in tulips"), it doesn't end well. I think it's time to start paying attention. Anyone know where to get valuation metrics on S&P 500 vs. non S&P 500 in aggregate? I'd be interested in the relative ratios like P/E, P/B, etc.

The kids will love going up the CN Tower - they can see the whole city and there's a glass floor that they can jump on to terrify their parents: http://www.cntower.ca/en-ca/plan-your-visit/attractions/glass-floor.html

Nexus 7 v2 now available for pre-order: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4551878/new-nexus-7-best-buy-pre-order-details-specs-price $230 - 7" 1920 x 1200 display, 2 GB RAM, 16 GB Storage

Maybe they should tax tires.

The best businesses are the ones that governments take the time to dismantle / destroy: - Standard Oil (why: economies of scale leading to monopoly) - Pre-1984 Bell (why: network effect leading to monopoly) - Microsoft (why: network effect leading to monopoly)

My only gripe about this book (well documented in the GOOG thread) is that Levy is overly sycophantic towards Larry Page and to a lesser degree Sergey Brin. I get turned off when authors mistake eccentricity for unprecedented genius. So to me it read a bit like a puff piece at times. Otherwise, the book is informative and Levy's understanding of the core material makes it a much better read than, say, the Steve Jobs biography. I thought The Search by John Battelle was also very good. It's a much earlier publication and therefore has a much more narrow scope around Google's core business.

Start a business.

I think the ethics questions were a lot easier many moons ago. Maybe standards haven't slipped after all!

I love reading personal finance stories. This one is a little light on the details, but my diagnosis is that the interviewee lacks patience. He seems to jump into opportunities without adequate consultation and research. Building wealth is a long term game - patience is key!

Since we're checking history on Tesla... This position is still < 5% of my portfolio, but is up 197% for me (from Oct 2011). is it enough to buy a tesla car yet? Not yet...!

Since we're checking history on Tesla... This position is still < 5% of my portfolio, but is up 197% for me (from Oct 2011).

Yeah I think that's right.. I was nitpicking but that kind of discrepancy can't be ignored. I am thinking of investing in a bucket of banks over there, names like Bank of Ireland and Santander. I think they will be downside protected even if everything else continues to suck.

Is it fair to compare these two markets like that? Say you have two companies, EuroCorp and AmeriCorp. They are exactly the same in every respect except that EuroCorp is based in Paris, and AmeriCorp is based in Chicago. Which would you rather invest in, given equal valuations? Doesn't that say something about why the European market looks so cheap on paper? This shouldn't become a political thread, but I think we can all agree that the American capitalistic system is significantly more efficient than the European capitalistic system. Which system you operate in will impact your business' fortunes.

I think the issue in Canada is the concentration of baby boomers whose primary asset is real estate. Boomers have a very high percentage of home ownership. Without looking I would guess that this cohort owns about 50% of all primary residences in Canada. Get that group all looking to cash in their "savings" over a 15 year period, and a crash is probable. The slack can't be taken up by younger generations at these prices, because they don't have comparable earnings power relative to boomers.