LC

walt373, you must be a doctor as I can barely make out the date from that handwriting! ;D Would you mind translating the rest of what the judge wrote? Thanks in advance.

I disagree. Take Amazon's cash flow from operations and subtract out CapEx and acquisitions (both necessary for its continued growth and competitiveness) and you'll find that Amazon has "made" less than $10 billion in the last 10 years on a cumulative basis. A company that has only made $10 billion cumulatively over the last 10 years doesn't deserve to trade at $137 billion or anywhere near it. Amazon is a charity...one the has promised outsized profits for the last 10 years for long term shareholders. Funny thing is that people still buy this after 10 years and dont seem to realize that large profits will never materialize due to higher SG&A, COGS, and CapEx to expand into business lines that they operate at large losses or razor thin profits. Lastly, one should question the strength of a moat that is predicated on undercutting competition. The moment someone else comes along with a lower price is the moment that moat is gone. I shop at Amazon because its cheap and convenient. If someone else were more convenient or more cheap, I'd switch in a heartbeat. Hold on now, if ABC corp made $1b/year over 10 years would that company be a charity? In my eyes it wouldn't. Valuation is a different beast. I don't buy into "promises" of anything. Do I think Amazon should trade at such a high multiple? No, I don't. That's why I don't own any. At a (much) lower price I would love to own this company. Let's turn to the moat. We both agree they compete on cost and convenience. They offer the best value in that regards. But yes I agree most shoppers will go elsewhere if another company can best them in this value proposition. But what are the chances of that happening? Can WalMart do it? Costo? Sears? How much money would it take to set up shop and put Amazon out of business?

I don't think Amazon is a charity...I think they just realize that winning the retail business is a lot easier by undercutting everyone and weaning everyone off big-boxes by offering great shipping options. Would I love to own Amazon? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I think their moat is probably like the 5th layer of hell. At this price? Not quite.

Another point is that once scale is achieved, they will also be able to purchase energy in bulk for some additional favourable economics. But I think Nate has it right: the idea of owning a car for independence (and a sign of a youth's entrance into adulthood, and all the other emotional ideas society has about car ownership) need to die a widespread death before this can ever achieve the scale needed to make it work.

Ha! It took me a few reads to form a grasp what it's saying. Here's my understanding: Essentially, Suntech China (Wuxi Suntech) owns the debt of Suntech Europe in the amount of $1bln. Wuxi is giving Suntech Europe an extension of six months as of June 19, 2013 to fulfill their debt obligations. As such, they officially registered their credit claims with Swiss authorities. Additionally, Wuxi Suntech "restructured" various other Chinese corporate entities of under Wuxi Suntech. "The Company believes the restructuring was necessary to facilitate possible financing of the Company’s operations in the future and potentially attract new investors." I'm not sure what their plan is...are they planning on consolidating all the debtholders under Wuxi, then write down all the debt (bankrupting Wuxi?) and try and suck in more US/European investors?

Latest press release: " In connection with the grant of a definitive moratorium on creditor claims from the judicial authorities in Schaffhausen, Switzerland to Suntech Power International, Ltd. (“SPI”), the Company’s principal operating subsidiary in Europe, the Company and various of its affiliated entities, including Power Solar Systems Co., Ltd. (“PSS”), the Company’s principal subsidiary in the British Virgin Islands, and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (“Wuxi Suntech”), the Company’s principal operating subsidiary in China, have submitted creditor claims to the administrator overseeing the moratorium. The Company, PSS, and Wuxi Suntech submitted applications to register with the SPI administrator claims of approximately US$192.7 million, US$324.0 million, and US$454.3 million (of which approximately US$350.0 million is subordinated), respectively. Such amounts followed a restructuring of intercompany debt among various operating units. In addition, other affiliates of the Company submitted applications to register with the SPI administrator claims aggregating approximately US$23.8 million. The actual amounts recovered by the Company and its affiliates as creditors of SPI may differ significantly from the amounts registered. Several of the affiliates of the Company which registered claims as creditors are also debtors to SPI. As previously announced, the definitive moratorium was granted on June 19, 2013 for a six month period and may be extended thereafter, and allows SPI time to restructure debt and reach an agreement with creditors. In addition, in connection with the intercompany debt restructuring, the Company’s principal Japanese and Singaporean subsidiaries, Suntech Power Japan Corporation and Suntech Power Investment Pte. Ltd., respectively, have been reorganized under Wuxi Suntech. The Company believes the restructuring was necessary to facilitate possible financing of the Company’s operations in the future and potentially attract new investors."

Sounds like you need reinforcement of your decision to hold cash. Buffett's biggest mistakes have been ones of omission, i.e. missed opportunities. The mistake people make when they read this is saying to themselves, "Well I won't have that happen to me, I'm going to grab those opportunities!". Then they reach too far and perform poorly. Instead, you should consider it a good problem to have! After all, if you have something in common with Warren Buffett, isn't that a good sign? Value investing is very price dependant. If the prices don't work, no amount of rationalization can make it work. The price is what it is. Buffett and Munger have held cash/cash equivalents for YEARS before prices made sense to them. More importantly, just because prices make sense to someone else doesn't mean they make sense to you. This is an important lesson as well. I would advise if you can't find good values, keep looking. Do not compromise!

Well, assuming you agree with the pension assumptions and there truly is an overfunded situation, then yes you back it out if you want to do EBITDA/EV type analysis. (When I look at compounding investments I try to look at FCF on it's own and then form a qualitative view of the economics of the business (i.e. the moat, if any). I only look at EV or BV to form an opinion on how much capital investments are necessary, how much capital was put into the business in the past and how those past investments have ended up in the current EV.)

I think it depends on what the investment thesis is too. If you're saying the company is undervalued on an asset basis then I would consider it an asset. But if you're looking at a compounding machine or if the thesis hinges on the company's earnings, I'm not sure it plays a huge role. Also consider the company's competitors. Do they have pension liabilities? How does the funded status of each compare?

I think the question you have to answer (if you want to invest in facebook) is, "what is the intrinsic value of facebook?" Haven't really seen anyone put a number on that...

I appreciate people sharing clear-headed assessments like that. Yea I mean, once it trades around BV it's probably fairly valued. The majority of their problems are behind them and it should trade probably around .9-1.2x book, which is a range of about 18-23/share. Over the next Qs I think we will see the market processing the improved financials and moving toward this range. What is your basis for BAC being fairly valued at or around book value? Thanks. Mostly a comp analysis between WFC USB and JPM, and I see no reason why it shouldn't trade at around book once the legacy issues are fully resolved given their deposit base and current banking environment. With more oversight, retail banks are only going to be able to do so much. Or if you invert the question into, "Why should BAC trade at a significant discount to book?" I cannot think of any substantial answers. Three or even two years ago you could have made a case for a discount, but with the progress they've made since then it is a harder question to answer.

I appreciate people sharing clear-headed assessments like that. Yea I mean, once it trades around BV it's probably fairly valued. The majority of their problems are behind them and it should trade probably around .9-1.2x book, which is a range of about 18-23/share. Over the next Qs I think we will see the market processing the improved financials and moving toward this range.

Used myspace and facebook...the main features of the platform are the same. You have your personal page, where you upload photos/videos/etc. and where people post. Facebook certainly improved upon it with a cleaner interface and additional features (poking, apps, etc.). Remember, what initially drew people to facebook was the exclusivity. Only college kids could access it. It's not like the platform you see today is what made it widespread. In fact, I fear they will eventually spread themselves too thin, eventually the "kids" stop using it, management kills the purity of it by "maximizing revenue", and it fades. I don't see where it will be in 10 years. I have no idea how to value it even today, or within a five-year time frame. Maybe it's a good trade, if you think earnings will grow in the next year or two. I'm not sure I define that as a sound investment, though. Definitely not within a value-investing framework in my opinion. That does not mean it won't make you money!

I'd take a page from Warren & Charlie's book and say muni's, but with rising rates and defaults...what's so wrong with cash!? In addition...the article seems too paranoid. The Era of Uncertainty? I am almost certain that Americans will be eating hamburgers, drinking Coke, living in single family homes, commuting via car, using their phones, using medical care, burning fossil fuels to heat their home in the winter and using electricity to cool it in the summer, and watching TV in 10 years. What exactly, is so uncertain? Interest rates? I can see it now, grandmothers everywhere in the sweltering heat exclaiming how they refuse to turn the central air on because interest rates are too high. Or my friends and family refusing to use their phones because of "macroeconomic uncertainty". Corporate profits are at all time highs, therefore I refuse to drink Coke. I'd like an RC Cola, please!

Looking at the industry from another perspective: The consumer electronic industry is defined by consistent "disruption" i.e. innovation. Which has been the most innovative company in the industry over the last 10 years? I think most would argue Apple.

Wow, revenue drops over 80pct. That does not seem like a characteristic of a stable business...I think I'm taking this off my watch list.

How do you know the EY does not compensate for the risk? How do you quantify the risk? Why is book value relevant? I think it's here to stay. Myspace and FB are apples and oranges. Then again, it's hard for me to remember what the internet was like before Facebook. :) Why do you think it's here to stay? I honestly would love to be convinced. I think Facebook, as the hub for online social interaction, would be a great investment if it could be monetized without degrading quality. As long as it is the "hub", it has value. Determining whether it will remain the hub in 20 years is a very difficult question to answer, so if you have some compelling reasons I would love to hear them.

My girlfriend (digital ad analyst) says otherwise...and that FB does not treat their clients (i.e. advertisers) well. Regardless, I have no idea if FB is here to stay or if it will eventually go the way of myspace. Not my cup of tea!

The most satisfying part was in big bold font, "We are expecting very high demand, so keep trying if a car is not available right away." I just want Fiat to put people in these cars and focus on brand awareness. The commercials are great, and I've actually seen Fiat's on the street. Good signs. Granted, the investment thesis is predicated on the market re-evaluating post the Chrysler merger, but everything else is just gravy. And I like gravy! ;D

"I've owned 400-500 names, but most of the money was made in 10 of them."- WEB, Berkshire AGM 2013 How can Buffett's 20 punches quote be considered contradictory? He said if you took that approach it would improve your results, he didn't say it was his own approach. I think it's a general mindset. If you hit your 20 punch limit and have been successful, and then BAC comes around trading at .5 tbv, are you going to pass? I don't think Buffett meant it as a hard and fast rule, although I'm sure if people did treat it strictly I'm sure they would do fine. All I'm saying is there are always exceptions!

Tender offer results in: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1092796/000119312513299799/d572798dex99a5c.htm -Fixed price tender @ $11/sh, max of $75m authorized -Tendered: 1,431,747 shares of its common stock at a total cost to the company of approximately $15.7 million (2.2% of outstanding) IMHO most shareholders think the stock price of undervalued. However I am not sure there is enough margin of safety.

If succession is such a concern to shareholders, why not look at Warren's personal life. How much is he leaving to his children, again? Versus how much he is donating? The man is such a stand-up human being, I would take his trust and advice over any person who has ever been employed by CNBC (and there are some very good, ethical people over at CNBC!). Just my two cents.

Why is it that Warren is such a class of character, to have billions of dollars and still maintain both his dignity and humanity. Stories like this really confirm what a unique individual he happens to be.

I agree 100%. Smartphones are where the big money is and that is where the war will be waged. (As an aside, I don't think the smaller players will matter. The market is now or will soon be a duopoly of Apple vs Android) Apple position in this war is different. Unlike in the old days of Mac vs. PC, Apple is now the favorite and Android is the underdog. It is Apple's war to lose. Personally, I think they will be successful. I believe they have a better product. But that point is moot. I think they are an attractive risk-reward investment because I boil the smartphone business into a binary event, which mimics the PC vs. Apple business of the past. If Apple goes on to win this battle and clearly dominates Android in the US & Intl markets, today's price will be a steal. I think it's hard to argue that point. But if Apple loses this battle (the way they "lost" the PC wars), they will still be active in the smartphone market the way they were active in the PC market-- as a niche, high-end product with a loyal customer base. So in that scenario, will an investment at today's prices prove a loss of capital? I don't think so. That really boils down the investment decision in my mind. I think it's a pretty safe risk-return investment. Whether they put out a better product, whether they have a sticky ecosystem, etc. are all important factors to the business of selling phones. But I leave those decisions to the company.

Below is a link to the S&P buyback index. May be a good plaice to start investigating when looking for cannibals: http://us.spindices.com/indices/strategy/sp-500-buyback-index