LC

Quite a drop today...not sure if anyone still holding this.

Buying and selling within a ROTH won't trigger any tax. Selling in your taxable account could trigger a taxable act if there is a gain (or loss) on the position. But simply buying BRK in this account won't create any taxes due.

As a 27 year old looking to make headway into the industry, there are not enough thanks to give. Cheers, Sanjeev! :)

Artal group did allow minority shareholders to participate in their buybacks pari passu. The issue is the valuation levels at which the buybacks were done.

My perception of the CFA is that, like most designations, it is not a replacement for wisdom, experience, and morals.

17 percent and having trouble finding ideas!

If there was ever a company that needs to go private, this one is it.

Not sure how one can intelligently take a position in this company. Whether the claims are true or not, too many issues keep popping up. The long position here is that Goldman was wrong. Is that a bet anyone really wants to take, especially on a company with so many issues surrounding it? Investing here is speculation.

FHCO not really on my radar much anymore as I believe increased competition is here. On that note, this memo from June 26, 2013 from Cupid: Overall I am pretty happy with how I handled this particular scenario. Bought the company at depressed earnings on good business news, had an informational advantage over most other market participants (digging up competitors financials on the BSE), and selling at a reasonable price before the market priced in increased competition. If only every situation could play out this way!

what would all that debt being converted the equity do for the share price...it's trading at 1.38. my thinking is do all these bondholders want to sit on millions of shares at pennies apiece?

Fixed that for ya! ;D

So the corporation owns the assets, and shareholders own the corporation, but shareholder's don't own the assets? Not sure how I follow that logic. If I own 100% of a company (and for simplicity let's assume no debt covenants), can't I go sell the company's assets if I want?

I guess here is my overall take (and I think this is as much for me to clarify my position as well!): -WeightWatchers sells a program that is based simply on scientific fact (diet/caloric intake). Anyone can come along and design a competing program which is just as scientifically effective. -So in order to compete with this, WW needs to differentiate itself. They do this in a few ways: (1) the "points" system, which makes it easier for customers to follow the diet (2) meetings, which increase effectiveness via both social reinforcement and regular accountability. (3) access to recipes, user-generated content, restaurants, food calculators, etc. which all come with "points" attached to easily integrate into your diet (4) they now offer an online only program, which for is slightly less expensive and offers everything but the in-person meetings. Not only do these offerings differentiate WW from competitors, but they also increase the effectiveness of their program. And in a market which is constantly inundated by new diets fads and programs, there is value in a program which offers a higher probability of consistent success. The other concept is scale. WW has international scale, which allows it to not only reach levels of operating efficiency by maximizing employees productivity in meetings, but reinforce its brand image via their well known TV commercials, etc. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this thread, they are a natural fit for companies/doctors/insurance co's to use in terms of both treatment and prevention of obesity. Their scale contributes to this as they can handle the request of large companies/patient referrals. From the bear side, here's a (dated-2011) PDF of the short thesis: https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/access/content/group/dff17973-f012-465d-9e73-a05fa4456644/Research/Memos/MII%20Memos/Archive/Long/S-WTW.pdf

Thank you indy!

A short blog post on some reinsurance company busts over the years. http://nihoncassandra.blogspot.de/2013/08/greenlight-redlight.html It makes me wonder...the post leaves out reinsurance successes such as Berkshire's reinsurance companies (although to be fair, Berkshire isn't a hedge fund). Perhaps success in this case has to do with the humility and discipline of the manager and corporate culture (i.e. not taking overconfident, undue risks).

Couple of questions to pose: -If you are in the market for a weight loss program, would you "go across the street" to sign up for WeightWatchers vs. a similar program (at, say a lower price?) -Do they have untapped pricing power? I'm not sure I know the answer to these questions.

Just have to listen to Munger's lessons on cognitive biases. In this case, incentive bias. Clooney doesn't star in the "safe" movies (ex: the mediocre action movies guaranteed to draw an audience) easy money makers. Loeb wants Sony to make more of those movies and take less risk, which would reduce opportunities for Clooney. Not very surprising that Clooney is against it, even though he is typically a lot smarter than that. The same applies to Loeb. He doesn't care about any artistic or cultural values, he just wants the most profitable ventures put forth. What's wrong with that? Isn't the purpose of a business to put forth its most profitable ventures? Depends on your time frame. Do you want to put our the most profitable movies this summer or do you want to build a studio that great directors, actors, stage people etc. want to work for, and build a history of making quality work?

Just have to listen to Munger's lessons on cognitive biases. In this case, incentive bias. Clooney doesn't star in the "safe" movies (ex: the mediocre action movies guaranteed to draw an audience) easy money makers. Loeb wants Sony to make more of those movies and take less risk, which would reduce opportunities for Clooney. Not very surprising that Clooney is against it, even though he is typically a lot smarter than that. The same applies to Loeb. He doesn't care about any artistic or cultural values, he just wants the most profitable ventures put forth.

I've looked into it in the past few months. Yesterday I read Geoff's article and sent him an email, here are the major questions I posed to him: Essentially those are my thoughts. Most importantly I believe is how heavy the transition from in-person meetings to online apps for customers is. This will provide proof of how wide WTW's moat really is. I view the case of Artal as a majority shareholder as more of an oddity than anything. I give them credit for allowing shareholders to participate in the buyback, despite saddling the company with floating rate debt.

I don't know much about Loeb's back story or reputation but I can't quite argue with this quote from Clooney as it stands:

I am using this as a learning opportunity. Between the comments on this thread from before the AWN deal went through and onwards, it should provide a good review of where some errors made in my investing judgement are!

*slams forehead on table*

Great video collection, there are a few there I haven't come across. Thanks as always Sanjeev.

http://femalehealth.investorroom.com/2013-08-01-The-Female-Health-Company-Reports-Third-Quarter-and-Nine-Month-FY2013-Operating-Results Major issue is COGS increase of 12%. The real fear in my opinion is we could be seeing the first signs of increased competition. Anyone thinking of a position should inspect Cupid's most recent financials and check how the competitive landscape has changed since 2011.

I think in the book business they are doing well on the convenience part. Also there is little incentive from Authors for low prices, and AMZN's cut is only 30% for a huge distribution. The customers have a very convenient way to shop books, even if it's not supercheap. Here I think their scale is most valuable. Books/media only seems to be about 30% of their revenue though, if I read their statements right. I don't see how anyone else will be able to undercut Amazon on a national level. The only way for another retailer to compete is to attack Amazon's shipping costs. If you consider the various costs which a big box neighborhood retailer incurs vs. a warehouse distribution + FedEx delivery system, I don't see how the big boxes can compete. Remember too, shippers must love Amazon. With all the business that Amazon sends, they are able to maximize any operating leverage they have in their business model. It reminds me of the mental model from Intel. intel's fabs have to operate at something like 95+% capacity in order for them to turn a profit. A 5billion dollar fab has a ton of operating leverage built into that cost. I think the same goes for shippers. You have an entire global distribution system, there is tons of operating leverage. And you want to maximize that utilization. Think of why the US post office is failing. Because they don't have the utilization in some of the absurdly small towns to justify the capital spent on distribution, staffing (which is another issue, I admit), etc. If I am FedEx, I'll charge Amazon at cost to ship and just make my profit on everything on top of their business!