LC

I'd just like to pick his brain a bit on some of the nuances of working capital. ask then otherwise u will get a canned answer.be detailed and specific

the higher rate you can compound money, the more you can afford to spend.

Edgar? The company's IR website?

Not a bad idea IMHO. Are you following through on this?

Good article. First time I've seen that Pearson was caught drunk driving. That was in 2009 and I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in this thread until now.

Just get rid of the rating agencies. Force people to be held accountable for the investing decisions they make.

I think my portfolio is quite GARPy but others may disagree

Yeah I'm going to disagree with just about everyone here. Get him an office gig, it gives him a pedigree which makes it easy to get the next one, etc. etc. etc. It's real easy to be a plumber, film maker, or whatever other barely-profitable passion project you have when you're 35 years old and have enough cash in the bank and a house paid off.

gingerman will be packed at that time, it's a notorious happy hour spot. if you can get room it's a great spot: beer selection is incredible and the pretzels are delicious. if it's too packed, there is another bar next door (going towards 5th) which may have more room. enjoy!

I don't knock him for trying I knock him for that weak argument

Seriously? I hope that is taken out of context because that is some sorry ass shit IMHO.

They tend to gravitate towards stable organizations because they understand the fragility of life and circumstance.

I put my portfolio in my signature to make it blatantly obvious that despite my ramblings in Amazon, Valeant, etc. threads, I don't have a dog in those fights.

I've been at this for 4 years. On an overall basis I've outperformed over those four years. Do I think I'm a "winner"? Heck no. I'm convinced I will probably under-perform over my lifetime. I am OK with that. Let me repeat that: I am OK with underperforming. It is still possible to get rich despite underperforming. I don't have a huge capital base where a 2% difference translates to millions of dollars. I concentrate on being good at my job and increasing my salary and title. If my stock picks (in my signature) underperform a bit, I am OK with that. I think they have more sustainable earnings than the S&P as a whole, but I am going into the "deal" assuming I could very well be wrong. I am OK with that. In fact, I think most of my "errors" have been due to reaching too hard trying desperately to outperform. Now I just try to find stable cash flows at a reasonable price (i.e. market multiple) and "get rich slowly".

Potentially very dangerous to your financial well being. Take a look at Pershing Square Capital management's experience with VRX ... big margin call when the stock price fell 50% in one day. Retail investors wouldn't get margin calls for cash covered puts. What doe happen then? when you sell puts you assume the obligation to buy the stock at a certain price. your liability is limited to the strike price. if you are cash covered, you have the funds available to purchase the stock at that price. so your broker just executes that transaction.

Mcap BV P:B AIG 61.89 89.6 69% BAC 143.11 256 56% BRK 352.15 255.5 138% FCAU 10.3 44.8 23% LUKOY 35 82.1 43% MMM 99.5 11.7 850% NKE 113.97 13.4 851% SAN 67 88 76% SNA 9.2 2.4 383% TFSL 5.1 1.7 300%

Great recommendation on the Q&A reading. Some notable highlights:

I'm not "good" at all, look at my portfolio I am pretty much stupid and lazy. I probably bring down the average here, I am not a professional or brilliant amateur. I am just glad you all tolerate me. Accrual and cash....timing differences when accounting statements recognize revenues and associated expenses. cash based means when cash comes in u get revenue, cash goes out u have expense. accrual is based on when the revenue/expense is 'earned'. i.e. if i have a contract which pays me 10k up front but i earn the revenue over 5 years, i have to defer it and recognize it as a i earn it.

Read this article recently: https://stratechery.com/2016/the-amazon-tax/ Concludes that Amazon retail operations basically exist to fuel AWS. I'm not sure I think AWS is so great. What are the switching costs? If someone gives me $50B and I build a huge datacenter, what advantage does AWS have?

I don't care about the semantics so I'll use your terms. -Where will the resources which provide for these systems of justice and protection come from, if not from taxes (or theft as you put it)? -Do you disagree with universal healthcare as a concept, or is your disagreement with how it's funded? Or both?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

So in your view: Humans have always had a "concept" of government or "the state" (although there really is no such thing as these things) This concept of "government" has waxed/waned in strength over the course of human civilization (presumably depending on humanity's "need" for it) But this "concept" is totally useless and will eventually be seen to be unnecessary. I don't quite see how A&B lead to C. Here's another interpretation Perhaps this concept of government is a part of the human condition and part of the nature of human society, and will always exist in one form or another. Perhaps it is both useful in some cases (like making sure our food doesn't have lead chips in it and our old sick citizens can afford rent), and useless in other cases (like wasting resources on corrupt defense contractors or bailing out corrupt politician's bankers). It's like an old grandmother. She makes sure all the kids are fed, bandaged up when they fall, and generally don't break themselves. But she still gives everyone $100 on some holidays depsite the fact that her one grandkid is kind of a dick and probably doesn't deserve it. Perhaps instead of blowing up something to which all evidence points to as being entwined with human society and will never disappear, a more mature solution would be to try and limit the useless aspects and enhance the useful aspects. Don't blow up grandma.

Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make. So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US. In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different. I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia.

O god I love that. Really wish more companies would do that. They probably realize expense management is more "in their control" than revenue, so they try to cloud those lines as much as possible.