Mephistopheles

I suggest learning Braille so you can read a book with each hand while reading/listening with your eyes and ears.

I know, I was just kidding. There are a few long threads on this topic over the last year or two. Apparently someone talked to Combs in person and he said the 500/day # is misquoted and he actually does 100/day. That would explain the interview in which he also said 100.

Buffett told the class to read 500/day and Combs upped it to 1,000? In that case, probably the best way to get ahead is to one up Combs and read 2,000 pages a day. Anyone who can't do that should only be buying low cost index funds.

I'll be buying the book on Tuesday at the Ackman event; will follow up with you guys with what is said there.

Thanks for posting, I'll definitely be going. Would love to shake hands with Ackman though I'm not sure what the likelihood of that is

He said he noticed the pay plan before Winters brought it up. I get his logic behind abstaining. He knows he's influential enough that he doesn't need to vote no in order for the plan not to work. Instead he took the diplomatic approach which also preserved Berkshire's relationship with Coke. It was brilliant imo. As far as Howard Buffett. I agree it was a weak explanation by Warren, blaming how boards work. Howard should have been more active on the issue and Warren shouldn't have made a silly excuse. Overall Warren threw his weight around and it worked, so I'm glad.

I do have a basis - at the state level the contributions were not deductible

Hi all, Quick question regarding this topic. Scenario: Let's say I converted $25,000 out of a $50,000 IRA to a Roth. I owe Federal taxes on the full $25,000, because it was a tax-free contribution to start with, and tax-free growth. For state taxes, I only owe money on the growth, because the contribution was taxed initially. The way to figure out amount of the conversion is the contribution, that I don't have to pay state taxes on, is figure out what % of the total account the $25,000 was. Now my question is, do I take the account value on the day of the conversion, in this case $50,000? Or do I take something like end of the year value, including the $25,000 I converted? For example, if the account at the end of the year post conversion is $40,000, then the total would be $65,000. So would it be $25k/$65k in that case, $25k/$50k? Hope I'm not confusing anyone. I tried Google but couldn't find a clear cut answer. I figure people on this board have converted many times so hoping someone knows. Thanks for reading!

I'm praying for a settlement. There is no better time for one than a market crash!

Two reasons: He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and has the IQ of a toaster. The comment section is worse: "thoroughly researched piece and convincing article. Just one thought. When one invests in Berkshire, one is actually investing in a portfolio and not in a stock. Is it fair to compare a portfolio return with single stock return? We all know that the portfolio returns are less volatile than a single stock returns."

Because initially the investment in Heinz was only listed for $12 billion on the balance sheet. Now that it's a publicly traded company again, the change in value will be reflected and marked as such every quarter.

Are there any prominent lawyers who believe the shareholders will lose this one? I'd like to read their stuff as a bear thesis. I used to rely on Carney's articles for it but he's been disappointing.

Knowing the variant perception is helpful but has its limitations. I like to read bear cases simply to be challenged i.e. to try and kill the idea. Sometimes though, as abovementioned, there is no concrete variant perception, or there are tons of variant perceptions. Ultimately what matters is if you think the cash excreted is greater than what you're putting up - if I can know why others think I'm wrong, that's great, I happily read their thesis. If I can't find out a reason why they think I'm wrong, or if it's something silly like the economy, China, or Greece; also great - I buy anyway. People have stupid rationale for buying and selling (including professionals). So no need to worry so much about what they're thinking, because often times, they're not.

The important thing to remember is that there need not be a ultimate final decision for there to be a payoff. There are many catalysts along the way. For example if Judge Sweeny unseals the depositions, that might be a quadruple right there. Or if the appeals court throws out Lamberth's decision. If something like this were to happen you can reevaluate the odds and reallocate to other investments if beneficial.

So now there are three major legal challenges: 5th Amendment, Conservatorship under HERA, and Corporate Law. If we win one of these and lose the other two, is that still a win? I.e. Sweep doesn't violate the Constitution but does violate Delaware corporate law. If so, let's just assume each case has a 10% chance of winning (even though it's much higher imo). That's 30% chance of an 8 bagger for some of the preferreds. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but the odds are looking pretty good.

Thanks Luke

Can you post the pdf here? Or we have to make a Lumin login?

If there is no chance of settlement, let's hope the judge makes the stuff public. If it's as damning as we think it is, the preferred would likely triple or quadruple. At which point I would sell much of my position to pick up some cheaper stocks due to this China induced selloff.

Crack cocaine because it sells at a discount to the pure stuff

I started in 2000-2005. Better way to ask this question imo is "at what age did you start investing?"

LOL^

So no response yet? If we don't get one is it safe to say that settlement talks are under way?

Government response due tomorrow for the motion to release discovery docs. Should be very interesting!

Just wanted to bump this. Merkhet, do you agree with this line of reasoning?

Someone should open a new front in Delaware Court just as we have in the Claims Court and District Court. Then there will be 3 separate issues challenged - 1) 5th Amendment violation by the Treasury, 2) Conservatorship/HERA violation by FHFA, 3) Corporate law violation. We just need to win 1 to win the whole thing. i.e. even if it's found that FHFA didn't violate terms of cship or Treasury didn't violate 5th amendment, there can still be a violation of corporate law. Seems like pretty good odds to me.