giofranchi

7 Health Care Stocks John Paulson Is Betting On in 2015 http://www.thestreet.com/story/13285848/1/health-care-stocks-john-paulson-loves.html?utm_content=buffer01405&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=eb He holds large investments in both AGN and VRX. Cheers, Gio

I don’t think so… The book opens with a letter in which Fugger asks a debtor of his to be repaid with interests… And that debtor was Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor!! ;) Cheers, Gio

Well, at Fugger's death his net worth was estimated to be around 2% the GDP of Europe… Rockefeller’s net worth at his death was less than 2% the GDP of the USA. Of course then the GDP of Europe in the sixteenth century could have represented a lower percentage of the world’s GDP than the GDP of the USA in the twentieth century… I don’t know… Cheers, Gio

Well, so far so good! But I will write more when I finish the book. Cheers, Gio

How Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes became the world's youngest female self-made billionaire http://www.inc.com/magazine/201510/kimberly-weisul/the-longest-game.html?cid=sf01001 Cheers, Gio

I am reading "The Richest Man Who Ever Lived - The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger" by Greg Steinmetz [amazonsearch]The Richest Man Who Ever Lived - The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger[/amazonsearch] I thought I had read the biography of all the most influential entrepreneurs past and present... I was wrong!... I had probably missed THE most influential! ;) What a great find for anyone interested in history or wealth creation! Cheers, Gio

Well, the “$200 every 2 years in exchange for being locked into a data plan” option is still available, isn’t it? If so, consumers have two possible alternatives instead of one. What's not to like? Cheers, Gio

"Apple expects China soon to become a bigger market for its products than America." http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21663328-booming-middle-class-creating-worlds-most-dynamic-consumer-market-wild-wild?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thewildwildeast Cheers, Gio

Not only! Don’t forget that those who’ll be over 40 in a few years were below 30 when Apple first introduced the iPhone and the iPad… They are used to having the latest devices, and I suspect they won’t change this habit just because they are 10-15 years older… Especially if Apple starts to upgrade the iPhone and the iPad with an eye towards business and healthcare. (Business is clearly a market in which Apple has still lots of room to grow, and I guess the new iPad is a step in that direction) Cheers, Gio

Ackman's side-by-side comparison of Vemma and Herbalife Cheers, Gio Vemma-Comparison-v11.pdf

Basically, my idea is the following: 1) If they keep growing, and keep defending high net margins successfully, Apple is the best business in the world today: and I definitely want to own the best business in the world! ;) 2) If I am wrong about growth and net margins, the low multiple I paid yesterday should make for a sufficient margin of safety, and hopefully I won’t lose much money. Cheers, Gio

Well, until now they have done a pretty good job! The recently announced introduction of the 3D technology is just another example. That “when” might be years away… Just think about medical devices and the constant monitoring of health parameters, which could save lives and make people live better and longer lives… Apple has barely scratched the surface! My idea is not only that ever more people will use smartphones and tablets, but also that they’ll keep asking for better, more sophisticated, more complete and technologically advanced products. Until smartphones and tablets are replaced by some other devices we have not even started conceiving today, it is very difficult imo to see why the trend of “better products, more widely used” should stop. Cheers, Gio

Also the monthly payments strategy just announced could be very useful! See the pdf in attachment. Cheers, Gio Apple_Shares_Could_Rally_50%_on_New_iPhone_Plan.pdf

I thought AAPL was not predictable, but I have changed my mind. I now think this trend is very clear: smartphones and tablet devices will only get used by an ever increasing number of people. Therefore, the question is: which smartphones and tablets will those people buy? I now think the probability some company will come up with a product which might put together software, hardware, and design better than the iPhone is very small indeed. Add to that the value of their so-called “eco-system”, with iTunes, the iPad, the iWatch, Apple TV, etc., and the probability of switching from the iPhone to another smartphone seems even smaller. In other words, imo predictable growth ahead for AAPL. I have just opened a 9% position. Cheers, Gio

iPhone 6S Vs iPhone 6S Plus: How They Succeed, How They Fail http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/09/10/iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-best-and-worst-features/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Technology&linkId=16950738 Cheers, Gio

Why Wall Street loves to hate Mylan's CEO http://fortune.com/2015/09/11/mylan-ceo-heather-bresch/?xid=soc_socialflow_twitter_FORTUNE Cheers, Gio

You are welcome! ;) Cheers, Gio

Bill Ackman: Stocks are pretty cheap; Disagree With Tepper http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/bill-ackman-stocks-are-pretty-cheap-disagree-with-tepper/ Cheers, Gio

Allergan And Perrigo Receive FDA Approval Of Three Extended Release Products Equivalent To Mucinex® And Mucinex® DM http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/allergan-and-perrigo-receive-fda-approval-of-three-extended-release-products-equivalent-to-mucinex-and-mucinex-dm-300141198.html Cheers, Gio

Great! :) Thank you, Gio

Well, that might be your way of looking at good capital allocators… Mine is different. Good capital allocators imo give predictability to a business because: 1) If everything goes right, the business they own keeps generating lots of cash, and they keep investing that cash intelligently. Investors become ultra-rich. 2) If something unexpected happens, the business they own starts struggling and generates less cash than it used to, but they invest it intelligently. Investors at least don’t lose money, and probably get satisfactory returns. Your way of looking at good capital allocators seems to believe we would always end up in case 2… I don’t believe so! And I hope to end up in case 1 very often! In other words, I want both a company that could double their installed base (if everything goes right) and has a good capital allocator at the helm (in case its installed base for some reasons doesn’t double instead!). Cheers, Gio

Liberty, I am gradually getting more and more convinced that you are right about AAPL. As you already know I give a great importance to capital allocation. And that’s probably the only issue that I still have before pulling the trigger: do you think Cook is a great capital allocator? If yes, why? Or do you think AAPL doesn’t need a great capital allocator? Thank you, Gio

It is probably interest paid in 2008 and 2009. Cheers, Gio

Well, from the article we get to know that he has found at least two multi-bagger for the edge fund he started working for when he was 25, and that he was made partner just a couple of years later. The Alzheimer drug is his first attempt on his own, and has already been a great success. If he is buying lotto tickets, he has already won the national lottery at least three times! ;) To me they look much more like very cheap options. Of course, I am not saying I am investing… All I am saying is I am not “dismissing” and I’ll keep watching with interest. Cheers, Gio

What I think is clear by now is they add interest payments back to operating cash flow to get to the amount of the cash really generated by their businesses, but they do not add back restructuring costs. Again, these are the numbers: CFFO 2009-2015: $6 billion CFFI (sale of a business) 2009-2015: $1.4 billion Interests paid 2010-2015: $3.4 billion Total cash generated since 2008: $6 + $1.4 + $3.4 = $11 billion, which is roughly the cash they claim they have generated. Purchase price 2008-2015 (cumulative): $35.7 billion Restructuring charges 2010-2015 (cumulative): $1.8 billion Total capital deployed since 2008: $35.7 + $1.8 = $37.5 billion, which is roughly the capital they claim they have deployed. After all, interest payments are something the mother company (VRX) has to sustain, because it purchased those businesses with debt. Therefore, interest payments have nothing to do with the amount of cash generated by each subsidiary. I don’t see what they should have specified more clearly. Cheers, Gio