LC

How do we know where it "matters most"? Masks. Nursing homes where more effort is put in separating infected from not infected. Better ventilation and training at Nursing homes. The only reason we know this is because of the extensive testing which was done and continues to be done. And since you’re so concerned with wasted resources, if we had tested more people much sooner, States would not have been fighting over masks and ventilators for weeks. And existing masks and ventilators would have been allocated more efficiently.

Starter positions in livenation and cloudflare

Why did they sell Berkshire now? Berkshire has owned highly regulated businesses for years. Same with its bank portfolio. It hasn't met those aspects of Akre's criteria for a long time - so why sell now? Perhaps Akre doesn't believe Berkshire fits the remainder of his criteria, perhaps: Enduring, predictable high ROEs* and FCF** Identifiable, sustainable competitive advantages Pricing power in excess of costs, inflation protection

How do we know where it "matters most"?

Other countries have tested more people per capita than S Korea, without the draconian measures. I fail to see how less information is more useful.

It does to me but my opinion isn’t worth hundreds of billions.

Bought some BRK, PM

Yea I get a bit of a wannabe intellectual vibe from him in certain aspects. If 20% of the work gets you 80% of the way there, I feel like he thinks it get him 100% of the way there.

Everyone's an expert, I guess: https://i.redd.it/afazin874wx41.jpg

I don't think so (or let's say, I hope not). China needs strong allies before furthering aggression. Weak oil prices hurt Russia which indirectly hurts China's political sway.

roark, thank you for posting. This was the problem: I actually posted this exact item here: https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/energy-sector/msg410462/#msg410462 Ultimately this is the point: This is incredibly sloppy by IBKR. Incredibly. Risk management should be aware the collateral models they are using could not manage negative prices. In fact there should be an automated script that prevents these models even being used once prices go negative, i.e. if a customer tries to make a trade, it will lock them out as the product will not be priced as the model is shut off. Without a product price, the collateral requirement cannot be calculated and therefore the trade cannot be executed. Incredibly sloppy. Any of the CCAR banks would be broken in half by regulators if this ever happened. Trading desk heads and their entire teams would be fired. Which, it would not happen - internal controls are much stronger and FRB/OCC also perform their own exams testing these items annually and monitor results quarterly and desks perform these tests daily/weekly. IBKR should be ashamed - this is a rookie, rookie mistake. And Petterfly is a damn bonehead for attempting to blame anyone other than himself and the knuckleheads he hired. “That’s how it’s possible for these contracts to go absolutely crazy and close at a price that has no economic justification,” Peterffy said. “The issue is whose responsibility is this?” It's your responsibility, you dumbass. Don't be so cheap to hire dopeheads next time.

Greg, I agree with everything in your post.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html

We've turned into a decidedly average country with a wide tailed distribution ;D ;D

Results out today https://investors.ironmountain.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Iron-Mountain-Reports-First-Quarter-2020-Results/default.aspx Bumping this as I am inexplicably still invested here

ATT bought back about 5.3B in Q1 (aprox 2%)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/politics/rick-bright-coronavirus-whistleblower.html We are a well functioning democracy. We are a well functioning democracy. :-X :-X :-X

No, Taleb is being cheeky in an attempt to appear smart on twitter. If you don't assume what is called a Markov process, then you are left in a much worse (and less sensible) place.

Out of respect for Greg and in the name of true journalism, I'll only be posting twitter links now :D Apparently coronavirus was present in France in December: https://www.politico.eu/article/france-looks-into-suspected-coronavirus-case-dating-back-to-december/

Maybe this is what you meant, but I think your statement is only accurate when you NEED the specific real estate for the business. A coffee shop which owns the building is more stable. A software firm that owns an office building is less safe. For lease accounting I generally think, is this necessary for the business? If this lease is cancelled, does it cause serious impairment? I mean, if a retailer gets kicked out of all its leases, that is a huge deal. Revenue is going to zero. But look at the tech companies - they've been functioning without office space for over a month now. But 99% of the time I capitalize leases regardless, essentially when you do any capitalization of earnings you are implicitly capitalizing all the associated expenses.

Yes and just for sizing purposes - it is currently a 7% position - started around 5%, went up to 10% as I bought more, now down to 7% due to market price declines and me allocating a greater % of funds elsewhere. If the price were to run up (or the rest of the portfolio were to drop dramatically in relation) I would certainly trim a fair bit to offset my cost basis, also I think I need to keep it at-or-under a 7.5% position due to the uncertainty around the core business.

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;) I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000. Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower. Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date. If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power. It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants. A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind. Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage). For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".

I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused. If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative.