LC

Heh...this topic came up recently over beers. An ex-analyst said a popular NYC manager almost never read the Ks (but of course all the analysts did)

Jamie Lannister's thoughts on bitcoin: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-raises-flag-on-trading-revenue-sees-20-percent-fall-for-the-third-quarter.html

Holy crap that is so sad. Or great, if it works out! Who am I to judge. The other great thing about working from home is nobody knows how much you are working! You could be up 18 hours working, or 3 hours. Nobody really knows. As long as the work is delivered on-time and in good standing, no problemo!

Hey guys, also let's consider the full time remote worker. I personally do this and it has changed my life. The 9-5 thing, with the commute before/after, what a time killer. Many of the reasons justifying early retirement can be gained without having a 2M nest egg to live off, by transitioning to working from home. I know it can't be done for every job out there, but if it's possible I think the benefits far outweighs the negatives. You have much more control over your day AND you work way more efficiently. You can live anywhere, not just a high-cost money center city. It's easy to go on "vacations" and just work. Anywhere with wifi, you can visit and simply "work" as usual. Your days are much more relaxed as well, it's easy to go to the gym, cook a nice lunch, etc. I personally work best late at night, so I can call into my daily meetings and then just take off and enjoy my day. Then 8 or 9 pm I'll start working and kill a full days work in 1/3 of the time. Just a thought!

You could use two screens: one which measures overall share count reduction over ten years (or whatever timeframe). then a second screen like the one provided, which screens for regular buybacks (X% per year). simply remove screen 2 results from screen 1 results and you're left with the "bulk" repurchasers.

John Oliver bit on Davita. Take with a grain of salt of course

In late 2016, I gave away $100,000 of this blog’s income to various charities, with much more to come. Having a business that makes and gives away money probably reduces the need to give away my real retirement savings. It sounds big if you think of it as “Four years of the family’s spending!”, or “An entire University education for a kid!” but only medium if you consider it’s only a mid-range Tesla. And downright small at less than a quarter of what this blog earned last year (before tax at least), which I managed via only the occasional typing of shit into the computer. The dude's blog on frugality is clearing somewhere around 500K/year. Sounds like I need to start a blog.

Wow. Mental note: never incorporate in Alabama (or if I want to slush money out of a company I solely own, incorporate in Alabama)

Any idea about the average Fico for ADS customers? My concern is outsized exposure to the low end of consumer credit.

Paging Nate...

Best investment in 2017 was 3M (+40%) and PM (+30%). Those are like 1.5 year returns, not 2017 YTD. Going forward I don't see much. Took a small position in DVA. Larger positions in CMP and C.

No problems here. Do you use an ad blocker? Try clearing your browser cache?

I think the research paper that racemize performed suggested that you should remain invested as long as you still can find undervalued positions. My take is that, even if the market is going loco, if there are still a few pockets of value, then it pays to stay invested in those.

Early retirement is great! I think the issue is we don't have any real details on how this person did it. Contrast with MMM, who pretty much laid out all the nuts and bolts of how he got to his current lifestyle. I mean, not everyone can graduate Harvard in 3 years, become a banker and save a million+ in 7 years of working. If that's what this person even did. Maybe her family gave her $1mm as a graduation present. Maybe her husband makes 500k annually. Whereas MMM's blog and advice is much more attainable for the average American, this one reads more like a self help book called, "I was born rich, and here's how you can too!"

I will say it's a lot easier to save money as a woman working in finance in NYC. Making 200+/year, attractive, you usually won't be paying for many drinks/dinners.

I think we're only getting half the information here and are jumping to conclusions. What was her salary during those working years? Is her entire nest egg just from working/ investing, or did she have a trust fund or something? Was her husband also an I-banker and saving everything as well? Why is he still working? What was their return on investment and expected ROI going forward? Etc etc etc. Also I'll present another angle: working as not a bad thing. After 7 years of working some shit jobs, I found a job that is mentally stimulating, coworkers who I am genuine friends with, and a work situation (fully remote) which removes all the related annoyances associated with the job (commuting, daily 9-5 set hours, fixed location, etc). I wouldn't give it up to "retire".

I've volunteered a bit to teach financial Literacy to high school kids in New York and I found the best way to engage is to figure out what the kids are into, and then challenge them how to turn their interest into a profitable venture. For example there was a group of kids who were really into video games, and their idea was a video game controller that they could throw on the ground or against a wall. So either has all rubber exterior, or would snap apart and you could re-assemble. And the girls had ideas about their own hair salon or making jewelry. But once you had their attention, and had made the link to something that was cool to them, you could have them think thru the economics of their particular idea.

Good brands in a shitty business, very cheap relative value. In that FCAU perceived value (car brand -wise) was equal to other automakers, but the price was 1/2 to 1/3 cheaper. Jeep alone was evidence of that. Bought at 5? 6? Sold at 13. Happy to be out but will miss Sergio. My real mistake was selling RACE.

It's a sneaker retailer. I'd rather go with the branded manufacturer, imho they have more weight in the indsutey

Ehh...I use it as kind of a gut check. Doing a completely private valuation is essentially saying you know everything better than the market does. And maybe you do, but it's helpful to see what the general consensus is around companies in the same industry. It's a triangulation tool. So yea, maybe you think P&G is a bit better than Unilever and deserves a slightly higher earnings multiple, but if all the CPGs are trading around 20x earnings and your valuation comes in at 35x, it gives you a second to pause and re-evaluate.

Perhaps using client satisfaction is a good proxy for capex spending? I.e. If the company is under-investing, you would think client satisfaction would drop.

debt coverage, interest coverage are the two most important to me. i don't usually look in the bargain bin of stocks, so take that for what it is.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-food-idUSKBN1AR11X?utm_source=applenews

and if DVA says, no, what will happen to their business? They would only be left with the money losing government business. Thiry would take a 90% pay cut and fire thousands of employees? Let's not make it sound like Davita has nothing to lose by playing a game of chicken with the insurers. My view is that their negotiating leverage is a lot smaller than what the bulls think. In a negotiation where both sides have massive downsides if a deal doesn't get done, typically both sides make significant concessions, not just one. Also, I picked 10% arbitrarily, the dynamics might be the same at 15% or 20%. Hence why I asked at what price the marginal patient is no longer profitable, because it's only at that point we can all agree for sure that it makes sense for DVA to say no and walk away. Based on some of the comments it sounds like with a 10% cut the company would still be printing money. what about 15 or 20%? Between the gov't, davita, and insurers, who has the worst leverage? the insurers. DVA provides a life saving service. The Gov't needs to pay for this service or people will start dying. The insurers want to save money. I don't see how the gov't sides with the insurers who are doing not much of anything, as opposed to DVA who is providing a subsidized service to the gov't (saving them money) while keeping people alive.

Response: "Anyone caught with western items will be shot on sight"