LC

Why so patronizing? Not sure why this guy is calling me out like I am here to get credit or win internet points or something. If you find it hard to believe you can find bargains in a market where many stocks dropped anywhere from 20%-90%, and you have a 2008/2009 style crash in one sector...then i would tell you what I think of you but I may get kicked off the site....i paid 29.99 to activate this account a few days ago so I need to get my money's worth before i say anything i might regret. I am here to learn, not here for internet games, bro. This post wasted 5 min of my life. Dyow=do you own work?

tesuji also took a stake in kmi. 20% of the fund.

I think your two main points are circumstantial: The implication that Munger owns BAC therefore it must be good. Maybe what you say is true (maybe it isn't), that isn't a fundamentally good reason to do anything. The biggest thing I learned in 2015 is not to be lazy and do my own homework. The implication here is that because a lawyer is CEO and because we just went through a crisis (7/8 years ago- not exactly fresh) the numbers must be true. Again, not a fundamentally sound argument IMHO - perhaps Moynihan is insulated from the ground troops and doesn't know what kinds of loans are being written. Perhaps he is doing just enough legally to get by while taking risks we won't know about. In terms of the crisis, well we have had a solid bull run over the last five years or so. Perhaps that has hidden many risks which will come to show when the tide goes out. I don't know. So we can say to follow the spirit of Munger's quotes, but how much more spirited do you need than him saying "Don't invest without real knowledge". It seems to me I certainly have little real knowledge (at least on this issue of lending culture). So I'm literally doing exactly what CM says not to do. And yet here I am, not selling. The Halo effect or groupthink or whatever psychological misjudgement you want to call it is real, folks. On the flip side, TheAiGuy presented a very valid argument IMHO. Perhaps CM is wrong and incentives trump lending culture in this case. I could see that as being a very real possibility. In an attempt to take the psychology out of it, here's my basic list of pros/cons: Pro: Price is 78% (or whatver it is now) of TBV Large deposit base and distribution network Simplifying business lines Is there upside if a "real banker" becomes CEO? Cons: No "real knowledge" of lending culture Hard to f&*k up lending in the past few years, have they taken hidden risks? Regularly underperform peers Maybe I am just crapping out of my mouth at this point. Feel free to add 8)

SCion Asset Management SCAM. J/k Burry :)

So fellow COBF'ers who are decently invested in BAC, what do you think of this? I frankly fail the test. I have no idea how shrewd the banksters at BAC are. Moynihan gets the reputation of being a straightforward, button-up new england lawyer tasked with streamlining the bank. But thats about as far as I know. The daily Journal has a 30% position in BAC. Berkshire has significant exposure to BAC as well.. My guess is Munger and Buffet are comfortable with how shrewd management is.. Not to be so blunt, but so what? Pabrai was comfortable with Horsehead. Pabrai is not Munger and Buffett I don't care if the ghost of Ben Graham came back with a 35 year old Warren Buffett on his arm and personally told me to buy BAC stock hand over fist. I'm asking if anyone has insight into the level of shrewdness at BAC, and if not, what makes you comfortable buying/holding in light of what Munger said. It's fine not to have an answer, I admittedly do not myself and tried to give my reasoning for owning the stock in spite of this lack of knowledge.

I'm just going to paraphrase you "I frankly fail the test. I have no idea how shrewd the banksters at BAC are." and add " Caveat Emptor" ! That's fair. My question is, for all of us who are invested in BAC without knowing how shrewd the bankers at BAC are, what is the rationale? In my case I figure there is solid discount to TBV combined with a CEO who is charged with simplifying the business, and a large franchise/distribution network.

True but a lot of people cloned him, saying "well mohnish/guy obviously think value exists here". Which is essentially what you are saying, that "Charlie obviously thinks value exists here". I'm just asking for the actual evidence of managements shrewdness. All I know of is moynihan's reputation, I have no insight into the underlying culture of making loans. How cynical are they? Does anyone know? Can we even tell, or is the discount to tbv and the large franchise/distribution network enough to validate an investment nonetheless?

What's the diff between the F and Y adrs? My broker only lets me buy the Y. Are the Ys onshore and the Fs offshore?

So fellow COBF'ers who are decently invested in BAC, what do you think of this? I frankly fail the test. I have no idea how shrewd the banksters at BAC are. Moynihan gets the reputation of being a straightforward, button-up new england lawyer tasked with streamlining the bank. But thats about as far as I know. The daily Journal has a 30% position in BAC. Berkshire has significant exposure to BAC as well.. My guess is Munger and Buffet are comfortable with how shrewd management is.. Not to be so blunt, but so what? Pabrai was comfortable with Horsehead.

Stealing this from another thread: So fellow COBF'ers who are decently invested in BAC, what do you think of this? I frankly fail the test. I have no idea how shrewd the banksters at BAC are. Moynihan gets the reputation of being a straightforward, button-up new england lawyer tasked with streamlining the bank. But thats about as far as I know.

I won't invest because it's essentially a protection scheme. They come to you and say "pay us $$ to remove bad reviews of your business. And by the way, your competitor down the street is paying us, so..."

I mean, Charlie can talk about how rational he is, but the reality is that the hatred for poverty and obscurity drove him to greatness: "but I hated poverty and obscurity and have satisfaction in coming a long way from where I started... Cicero says happy men in old age look back on a lot of achievements. Some say that’s damn selfish, but I like it. I’ve always hated poverty and obscurity and finally found my way out of them"

Same, also just locked in 3.5% for 30

to be fair, that's one of the few things i disagree with CM/WB on. i've always fallen into the "better to have loved and lost" camp.

switched remaining warrants to common today.

You haven't made clear how removing public education is an improvement. Your suggestions, which boil down to "get rid of everything", imply that the existence of public education prevents education. But I would disagree: I attended public schools for the majority of my life. I've learned many things in public schools. Including how to deal with those "impeding education". I've also learned many things outside of school as well as a result of my own initiative. The two are not mutually exclusive. Additionally, other options do exist: Home-schooling exists. You can pay for private schools which ascribe to any number of teaching methodologies (montessori, harkness, etc.). I would also disagree that you can't "design" or "force" education. I was "forced" to do my "designed" homework on a daily basis by my parents. Their rule was, do your homework then you can go play with your friends. Well, it worked.

Too much regulation or absolutely zero regulation both cause problems. As with just about everything, moderation is best. Standards exist to ensure safety. Snake-oil salesmen exist in all forms, education is no different. What makes you think removing all regulation will have a positive effect?

i;d concentrate my efforts on the parents. they have the most motivation (usually) and know the kid best (usually). teach them to teach their kid the right values

You can't blame a guy for trying to make a profit from a market inefficiency. Aren't we all doing that? Sacrificing a long-term profit stream for short term gains. Poor investment decision.

What? Of course u can do homework on a commodity producer. Look at their debt schedule and gauge liquidity. Look at their production profile to see how diversified it is. Had I done the homework on their debt and kept tabs on the technical failures at their very concentrated factory I wouldve sold earlier. But I was lazy. Edit: And I know I'm lazy. I never should've invested in Zinc because it's not a lazy man's investment. It was a very concentrated bet. It wasn't my game. I'm a lazy investor and my portfolio needs to reflect that (it since has). My big takeaway is be honest with your mental profile and make investments which reflect that.

BAC 2016: The Schlongening

Sanders imho provides the best long-term plan for the health of the country. The markets will eventually reflect this.

That's great, sounds like he has a strategy that has done well thus far. And now it sounds like the "pressure to do something" has overwhelmed him into fixing what already seems to be working just fine. Any of those four options will fail if your friend falls prey to the "urge towards activity". For example, take option (1): mechanical value-investing. Tons of people try this at different points in time and the vast majority abandon it. There are only a handful of PMs who continue to do so. Most can't sit still.

You're clueless. Care to explain (w/o asking us to go through the long thesis) why he/she is clueless while bringing up some really valid points. I won't continue the name calling (I like this board because there is relatively little of that) but I will say that Chalk bag did mention he thought FCAU may be a good short in an earlier post. I just think betting against the best CEO in the industry is a bad idea. There have got to be better short ideas out there than this He does put forth the comprehensive bear case though. And I agree with many of his arguments. That said, they're not as good of an argument as ad hominem attacks but we can't all be masters of both logical thought and rhetoric as arcube is. 8)

ccar reports are due april not dec.