Mephistopheles

Just out of curiosity for the tech savy people: why has mining gotten harder over the last few years?

In a speech once (I think at University of Florida - it's on YouTube), someone asked him this and he compared KO and MCD. He said he likes KO better because it has better pricing power. He said MCD has to give out prize goodies (such as happy meals) in order to drive customers in, and to that degree Burger King has to do the same, and in that way they are very competitive with each other. In that same speech he mentioned how Cola has no taste memory. EDIT: Here's the speech.

That would make sense, although I'm not sure what the exact terms were either. Didn't Buffett also have a fee structure where he took some of the losses? I think he got 50% of profits above 6% and took 25% of losses or something. Or rather he guaranteed a certain %.

I guess that is pretty much close to the position size he wanted. He also said he wanted to invest about $10 billion in IBM and I think he disclosed the position once he got close to that limit. Vinod Yea I guess so, but I'm wondering why that would be the case given the very limited universe of ideas there is, and less than a handful of those that Warren "understands, with a good management, and good price". Also he doesn't like to diversify; and this is less than 1% of Berkshire's assets. Just curious of course; I'm sure he has a good reason.

I wonder why he disclosed the position at $3.7 billion instead of keeping it a secret. Given all the talk about size, and since he doesn't believe in making small investments, why not build it up secretly to $10-20 billion?

Interesting to see Ackman build 10% positions in both Freddie and Fannie common stock. He was buying heavy at $3 at least in Fannie. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dex992.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/0001193125-13-443212-index.htm The article says 10% stake, not 10% position. :) I'm confused though because a 10% stake in FNMA would be nearly $2 billion, and in FMCC would be $1 billion. According to Fannie's 10-Q, there are 5.8 billion shares outstanding. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052213000205/fanniemaeq30930201310q.htm#sBE5B9CCD847B2587CC9B7E4F6CD88837 But according to Pershing's 13D, there are 1.2 billion shares outstanding, which if so would make the 115 million share stake a 10% position. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dsc13d.htm Am I missing something here? Just realized that the 5.8 billion outstanding includes the Treasury warrants.

Also a couple of beginner questions: 1. I asked this before but didn't get replies so I'll just ask again. How can we check Congressional stock holdings? I am wondering if members of Congress own either the common or the preferred. 2. The risk for both the common and the preferred is that the government will take all the money and they will go to $0, correct? But if shareholders win the lawsuits, then the money will flow through. So in that case wouldn't the common offer a much higher return at nearly the same risk? EDIT: Just saw your reply txlaw. This seems like a binary sort of event in which if the judge rules in the shareholders favor, there would be plenty of money for all shareholders, and in which case the common would offer far greater returns than the preferred. On the other hand, they can all go to zero.

Interesting to see Ackman build 10% positions in both Freddie and Fannie common stock. He was buying heavy at $3 at least in Fannie. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dex992.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/0001193125-13-443212-index.htm The article says 10% stake, not 10% position. :) I'm confused though because a 10% stake in FNMA would be nearly $2 billion, and in FMCC would be $1 billion. According to Fannie's 10-Q, there are 5.8 billion shares outstanding. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052213000205/fanniemaeq30930201310q.htm#sBE5B9CCD847B2587CC9B7E4F6CD88837 But according to Pershing's 13D, there are 1.2 billion shares outstanding, which if so would make the 115 million share stake a 10% position. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dsc13d.htm Am I missing something here?

Doesn't Mohnish have a checklist just as long, if not longer? And he's said that results have been great since he started using it.

Interesting, I didn't know that Weschler/Combs had analysts working for them. For some reason I thought they did all the analysis by themselves like Buffett.

Is there a way to check Congressional stock holdings? I looked on Opensecrets.org but can't find anything. I am wondering if members of Congress are invested in either the common or the preferreds. That might be a good indicator of how things might play out.

Word on the street is that SHLD is the next BRK and Eddie Lampert is the next Warren Buffett.

Actually, what I am looking for is a decent rollover IRA account. IB cannot lend out shares in IRA accounts, and they charge $7.5 per quarter, which is not big fee though. I think the only advantage for IB's IRA account is that its foreign stock trading is quite nice. By the way, in Merrill, if you sell a stock, would you be able to use that unsettled cash proceeds to buy a stock? I can do this in Fidelity cash account, but for IB, I must have a margin account to do this. What about Merrill? BTW2, What about Merrill's international stock trading? Do they have that? I'm not sure about the unsettled cash thing, since I have an untapped margin account. And I'm 99% sure they don't have international trading.

I'm thinking now that IB may actually be better even in terms of cost, if I can lend out my sears shares for interest and because it has cheaper options trading (I think) than Merrill.

I used it and can confirm that it's crap. ...but it's worth the $0 trades. :) What do you dislike about it? I meant to say use* it. The platform is terrible. It's a bit slow and just unorganized in general. The customer service reps don't seem to know much. You might have a question for them and they will transfer you a few times or keep you on hold until they find someone who knows the answer. Certain issues they have never been able to solve for me. Such as: I wanted to get my stocks listed under my name rather than street name so that I can receive annual reports in the mail, and nobody seemed to have a clue as to what I was talking about. Even calling in is a headache because you have to give your account #, last 4 of ss, and zip code to the automated operator first, then you have to choose your type of inquiry from a menu of items, and then when you finally get a rep on the line you have to give certain details of your recent trading activity in order to confirm that it's really you. You have to do all this for even basic questions that shouldn't require security protocol. Their trade execution is fine. Even with a tiny OTC security like glacier, I was able to fill pretty quickly. However there is an added security measure if you want to trade OTC stocks or preferreds such as Fannie. They send you a card which you can click on and it generates a random number that you have to type in before each trade you make, which I find annoying. Overall it's an annoying experience but since I trade infrequently I don't mind it given the free trades. If I was a short term/momentum guy, I don't see myself using it.

I used it and can confirm that it's crap. ...but it's worth the $0 trades. :)

Anyone know what that letter from Buffett to Mohnish was regarding?

I don't think National Indemnity fits the description of "small privately held insurance company". :)

Greenspan was also on in the segment after Buffett. It's a shame that Charlie Rose didn't put them on together.

I can only imagine what the sentiment towards banks would be in this scenario.

Not saying that he doesn't watch TV or know pop culture, but I think what Munger and others mean when they say that is you don't need to act (as in buy or sell) all the time, so just sit on your ass and watch your investments. But at the same time Buffett and all good investors are constantly learning and reading about business, whether or not things are expensive at the time. :)

Let's get real, U2 are the best songwriters/band/performers :D

What is the purpose of routing to Canada instead of just buying it OTC in the U.S.?

"When an investment could work for either the mutual funds or the hedge fund, where he could reap larger fees, Mr. Berkowitz said it would be randomly assigned among the funds that could take the investment and that he wouldn't be involved in the selection process." Seems a bit odd. Why not just buy as much as possible/as wanted for both?

Also with the first guy it wasn't because of the vacation. Buffett denied that was the reason back then and it even has an update in the article: UPDATE: Buffett refuted reports that he fired Abrams because of the party, instead saying the decision was "based on a differing view about distribution channels and brand strategy," according to CNBC. Buffett wrote in a letter he sent to Abrams: The recent story coupling a top management convocation on a boat with the decision to make a management change at Benjamin Moore is completely false. I think the Abrams wanted to sell the paints in stores such as Home Depot and Lowe's whereas Buffett wanted to keep it exclusive to Benjamin Paints stores.