LC

Info here: http://wealth-index.com/ Just as a disclaimer I have only used it to source ideas for research.

That's presumptuous. Shall I start naming hobbies which are predominately populated by women? Soapmaking, perfume making, sewing, knitting, yoga, gardening, writing, jewelry making, antiquing, etc. I can go on. This argument is totally facetious. There doesn't appear to be a single female on this board, and yet here we all are discussing the issue as if we have a clue? Reminds me of when some argument about race and poverty came up a few months ago. Remember: we're male, above average intelligence and wealth, and if everyone just listened to our opinions...

Everyone likes their steak differently. I went to a steakhouse with a friend who happens to be a butcher, I couldn't believe it when he ordered ax expensive steak well done. Maybe he gets tired of raw steaks at work!

I'd say Berkshire. It's the greatest investor's lifetime collection of businesses. Second I'd say the ISE Wealth index etf.

That interview was ridiculous. The two hosts were 30 seconds away from publicly shaming Tepper for not being apart of the giving pledge. Is there no tact left? I felt embarrassed for everyone who was a part of that.

Has anyone thought of the risks associated with high union workforce? how sensitive is horsehead to potential union problems.

When do regulators become concerned given the growing amount of utilities etc that BRK owns?

I'd say experience. Simply growing older does wonders for realizing what's important, both in business and in "life". No need to get rich quick, you can also get rich slowly and learn and grow along the way. So uh...I guess my novice advice is to just take it slow. Good luck and welcome :)

Just remember that they capped 50% of their variable debt: "In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company entered into five interest rate cap agreements ("2013 Caps"), in accordance with Company policy, to avoid unplanned volatility in the income statement due to changes in the LIBOR interest rate environment. The 2013 Caps, which mature in December 2016, had a notional amount of $250,000 and were designated as cash flow hedges of future cash interest payments associated with a portion of the Company’s variable rate bank debt. Under these arrangements, the Company has purchased a cap on LIBOR at 2.50%. The Company paid $815 to enter into the caps, which is being amortized through interest expense and other, net over the life of the agreements."

Even better is that all the loonies paying thousands just add to the social status of the brand.

That's a good question and central to the investment. I think they will. I was a PC user in the 90s/early 2000s. I didn't get why people bought Macs. Eventually I got an iPod and iPhone. And now I see te difference: they provide the most intuitive interface between people and electronic devices. Apple products are seamless to navigate and respond well to human direction. My long term thesis is that (1) people will be using more electronic devices in 5-10 years and probably beyond, and (2) Apple creates the most intuitive electronic devices to interact with. For these reasons I think they will retain a high and probably growing level of profitability. If either of those 2 points changes, my investment case changes as well.

Bought a bit at this level. Anyone else? I hope I am not missing something, although I'm not sure what it could be.

They'll probably sue BAC.

I think a lot of WB's quotes are taken too far. What he meant by Hershey is the incredible dominance Mars/Hershey has over everyone else in America in the chocolate industry. There's definitely brand loyalty for Apple but I doubt it is as large of a % of the population as you think. When it's no longer popular, sales will drop. This is a commodity product when they are not clearly ahead in innovation. This is a fickle industry and there is no moat. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/04/05/americas-favorite-chocolate-brands/3/ I don't think that is what he meant. I think he meant a brand/franchise exists (and subsequently, the opportunity for outsized returns) when you offer a product that consumers (it doesn't have to be all consumers!) are willing to cross the street for. Apple fits that bill. Samsung et al are probably just as technically advanced, if not more, than the iPhone. They are less expensive. And yet I (and some others) will walk across the street. As to whether there is a moat or whatever you want to call it, who knows! Does Gillette have a moat despite the fact I pay about 10cents for a double edge razor blade vs the $4 Gillette wants to charge me? I think the world needs to wake up and stop shelling out $10bucks for razor blades. But, check the financial statements of Gillette vs DE blade companies and a moat appears to exist. The proof is in the pudding. Same, I think, goes for Apple.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-26/the-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes Interesting, albeit tangential, excerpt: ". In 2012, Goldman was rebuked by a Delaware judge for its behavior during a corporate acquisition. Goldman had advised one energy company, El Paso Corp., as it sold itself to another energy company, Kinder Morgan, in which Goldman actually owned a $4 billion stake, and a Goldman banker had a big personal investment. The incident forced the Fed to ask Goldman to see its conflict of interest policy. It turned out that Goldman had no conflict of interest policy"

WB's line about going across the street to buy a Hershey's bar or whatever brand it was is coming to mind here. IMHO Apple users continue to buy apple products. Android users have no problem flipping over to different manufacturers. HTC one day, Samsung the next, etc. etc. On one side you have a commodity product. It earns commodity like returns, competes purely on price and technical specifications. On the other side you have a differentiated product with decades of brand loyalty which earns outsized returns. Which business would you rather own?

Walter Schloss didn't have the balls to put on a 15% position, either. The problem with Tilson isn't the small position size but the lack of outperformance.

As long as they're buying something Fiat makes, I'm a happy shareholder. I think the picture it being painted as very black-white. Luca wanted to keep Ferrari's as an enthusiast car, Sergio wants to pump out the brand like McMansions. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Marchionne has done a steller job. His boss is a long-term owner. I don't see them making short-sighted decisions.

Palantir, there are 12 million millionaires worldwide and the number is increasing.

Tender offer for about 4.5% of s/o: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885550/000119312514346367/d788529dex99a1i.htm

I just want to mention for our US friends: The F1 thing is a real draw. Most Americans don't get this. People in other countries watch it passionately. I dated a girl from England who woke up at 4 am religiously to watch these matches. They are most certainly a draw and provide brand value, as some of our European friends on this thread have alluded to.

Uh, tons of investors were. The enthusiast author is simply not looking at the entire landscape. Post from the comment section, which I agree with: 3,000 more Ferrari's worldwide will not dilute the brand. Most people won't even notice an increase of them on the road and will still go on buying Ferrari swag.

very cool. thx for satisfying my curiosity about the data integrity.

Thanks for the response. Just curious, where do you pull your data from?

It's like a ticking time bomb, right? How much time Eddie will take to right the ship, if ever. The RE gives him a lot of time. He can draw liquidity from its value. So I see it in very basic terms: he either rights the ship (whether that takes 6 months or 6 years), or he doesn't. Then the question becomes, why buy now? Why not wait until operations turn? Presumably there will be plenty of time to build a position as retail operations won't simply turnaround in just a single quarter or even a year.