nkp007

If it's free, whatever it costs!

I feel sad. Maybe he regrets this. Also, I wonder how much they paid him. In shares?

Ha, that's always a good one :D Though I believe that Cuban was referring to something different: Since afaik Facebook didn't float the whole company during the IPO but just a fraction, they could have reduced supply without changing the size of the 'pizza'. f.ex. If they have a 100B valuation and float 10% in an IPO, it's not the same as floating 1%. Maybe with 1% there would be an irrational feeding frenzy that would make the stock price stock, but that wouldn't happen with 10%.. Cuban didn't make most his money by investing right? I recall he started a tech company. I read a few of his investment posts and he's generally lost when it comes to patient and disciplined investing.

Brilliant. I think we are all super-skeptics, but really after all our analysis it doesn't hurt to add a sprinkle of optimism. Mainly recognizing that the world will not end. And if things look really cheap, it's the time to buy.

Someone forgot to pay the bill. I guess a billion a month in cash flow to Berkshire wasn't enough ;D

Lol at this whole godforesaken thread.

I love when famous people have name tags.

I learned a lot about how $CHK owns some awesome assets, how the supply / demand dynamics of natural gas create an insanely cheap price right now, and how natural gas will probably be the biggest boon to U.S. industry since WWII. However, I don't like $CHK (I don't feel comfortable with their structure, their management, and the huge cash shortages). Since I invest with concentration, there's no way I'm investing in them. Maybe a small options position. But I appreciate the takeaways I got from this issue, even though nothing was "actionable" for me.

Up 10% is nothing. Wait until it's up 5x.

Beware of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. e.g. CNBC, economists, most bankers, anyone who uses a formula to guide the entirety of their investment decisions, those who dive too deep into details and miss the big picture, those who just look at the big picture and don't dive into any of the details, those who quote stock prices without mentioning anything fundamental on a per share level...

Great piece. My interpretation: -Germany is eventually going to have to care enough to save the EU because if they don't, they're going to suffer a lot via an overly-strong currency and significantly reduced regional demand. -They need to act soon. Bandaid theory. One big swipe. -I think that everyone has been thinking about the outcomes at least from 2010. The levels of preparation by global banks and businesses should significantly brunt the impact. The main damage is not from an unexpected sudden change, but the slow draining of capital and liquidity from lower tier European countries.

Oh my god it came in the mail yesterday...! Christmas in July indeed.

I love when people treat stocks as one entity, as if they are all the same. "I won't ever invest in stocks. They suck. Look at Facebook!" Also what the hell is this: "As equity markets shrink, so does the sway of the owners of that equity, reducing shareholder control over companies – and challenging accepted concepts of corporate ownership." Are we in the time Buffett was in during his heyday? "Some hope that the cycle is about to turn and that the preconditions for a new cult of the equity will emerge even if it takes time. Few people doubt, however, that the old cult of the equity – which steered long-term savers into loading their portfolios with shares – has died." "Indeed, equities have not been so cheap relative to bonds since 1956, which turned out to be one of the best moments in history to have bought stocks. George Ross Goobey, the British fund manager who ran Imperial Tobacco’s pension fund, had announced to great scepticism that he was shifting his entire portfolio into equities, sparking the cult of the equity because dividend yields exceeded bond yields." And finally, the epic quote that you'll look back on in ten years and laugh: "For Mr Buckland, this is “the logical response to the collapse in investor appetite for equities evident in the past decade”. But it also implies that capitalism as currently conceived, where corporate managers are responsible to their owners through the stock market, is under threat. With fund managers under pressure to buy bonds – and companies content to adapt to this rather than create the conditions where equities might look exciting again – it is easy to see why they believe the next cult of the equity is still up to a decade away. For Mr Utermann, there is “no natural flow into equities” for the next five to 10 years. “The rules of the game have changed”."

I backed up the truck, filled up the cargo bay, and now am filing up the passenger and driver compartment. If this keeps up, I'm going to have to start storing stuff on the roof. Wish I had two trucks.

This type of hatred has got to signify some large element of undervaluation. Especially since no one is focusing on the fundamentals (and I guarantee you none of those protestors owns a share of the stock). What's interesting is that I think most of the American public feels the same way about BAC and would rather not own it, based simply on perception.

I've been adding to BAC AIG and C. I am out of cash. Fully invested. It had to happen sometime.

Today's WSJ article is framed as if the cuts will lead to BAC shooting itself in the foot. I doubt that's the case, but that's the perception.

Lol. This is a witch hunt.

With a 74% loans to deposits, there is no need for expensive financing especially if it is expensive and does not contribute to capital ratios. Too much liquidity! Yep. Looks like low hanging fruit.

Great plan! Don't ask for dividend / repurchase permission; instead, use excess cash to buy back debt.

Always keep looking. Always keep adding to your watchlists. If you come across an investment that has a 99% chance of doubling, you'll probably find something to sell.

Lol. I was joking. Much better to short the B's ;)

That's some severe imitation. Alas, their investing styles are anything but the same.

That's great! Effective searching is key. Thanks.

In an effort to study the history of various companies, I have attempted to locate some old annual reports. I found the following sources: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/catalogs/databases/detail/pq_hist_annual_repts.shtml Looks perfect, but unfortunately does not have trials for individual users and http://library.columbia.edu/indiv/business/guides/annual_reports.html Looks interesting, but only has a very limited number of reports online. I'm going to seek out the proquest data at a library, but in terms of reading old annual reports from home, does anyone have any suggestions? In addition, I'd love to look through reams of old, business related newspaper articles. Any suggestions?