Spekulatius

The problem is why would the owner VW change anything? The Beherrschungsvertrag governs what Audi Shareholders get and even a spinoff or sale of some of their brands would not change that. Some companies live under such a contract forever. I don't recall a case where shareholders from a company governed by a Beherrschungsvertrag came out ahead. I guess it is possible, but you could wait decades.

Screw Apple and other phone price gaugers. There is no reason for good smartphone to retail for more than $200. And I refuse to pay more. Well, I tried that and went with the Motorola G5+ , but it the the moment I tried it. I'd rather stick it out with my Samsung S4 a bit longer. I do think that there are some midprice phone a ailanle, which are essentially last years top models or something close. The price needs to be seen in context of the usage. A lot of people use their phone more than their home PC, they don't buy cameras any more, no PDA's watches, GPS etc. So it is a lot of functionality in one device and people find it worth spending $1000 on it, even those that really can't afford it imo. My Samsung S4 lasted for 4 years and with spending $600 (which seemed absurdly high at that point for me), I think I got my money worth. If you upgrade every year, it's become much more expensive, but at least for iPhones, the residual value is good, for Android ohones, not so much.

I think the fact that Apple decided to market a super premium device for >$1000 a piece is a strike of genius. not w they upped the MRP of a phone from $600 to ~$750 (for the plus size) to >$1000 and without increasing their market shares in terms of units, Apple can increase their revenues and profits. It is clear that the buzz is around the IPhone X and I expect that the most expensive device will sell the best, my wife even noticed that iPhone X is what everyone talks about, even techs that make less $20/hour, go figure. She has the iPhone 6, which still works great, but almost anybody is on the iPhone 7 already and will probably jump into to the iPhone X, if they can afford it somehow. In the meantime, I am still running my Samsung S4 and noticed that many people at my workplace run iPhone SE (for the small size) with some more expensive devices mixed in, even so the salary range is way higher. I guess those dry cut engineers and scientist look at his more rationally. Buth for many others, having the newest cellphone has become a matter of prestige, I think, so the value perception is beyond just the utility of the device. I have to admit that the new Apple Watch looks interesting, my wife like her wearable Fitbit, but I think she would love the iPhone watch as a birthday gift. Apple has done a great job offering a phone in almost any price range, with new add one like the watches now coming more and more mainstream. This will enable them to make more revenue and profits without even increasing the market share. It is good for other smartphone players too, because the customer becomes used to higher price points. I thought my Samsung S4 then for $600 was expensive back then and expected my next smartphone to be cheaper, the way electronics usually go, when the market become saturated, but it seems that the market has been moving upscale with more and more units being sold at higher price points.

I'm also sitting here glaring at my about 4 years old Samsung Galaxy S4 trying to make up my mind, if it is worth postponing my master plan of becoming the controlling shareholder of Berkshire. Quite irritating when a Berkshire investment also aims high and thinks big and makes me loose focus. LOL, I am exactly in the same situation - I have an aging Samsung S4 that seems to have it's quirks lately, so I need to upgrade finally. I bought the Moto G5 recently from Amazon and did not like it and returned that thing in a hurry. My wife has the iPhone and I think they just work better in daily life and may be worth a premium. I choke at the price points that Apple introduced their phones. I am thinking maybe get a refurbished IPhone 7+, should they go on sale in their store (November 2017?), as I had very good experience buying refurbished devices from Apple.

I bought AXS, RE and a bit of AHL. Those stocks have been battered enough discounting a 100 year event. I think the well managed insurers keep exposure to a 100 year event to <20 % of their book value.

Fressnapf is a trading retailer with online presence. I confirm that Fressnapf prices match or a lower than Zooplus. It does not appear a to me that has a pricing advantage. This is also confirmed in a study from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verbraucherstudien http://www.dtgv.de/tests/online-shops-tierbedarf-test-von-preisen-angebot-und-service/ it is clear that Zooplus doe not have a pricing edge, nor are their product offerings broader than their competition.

Flannel is actually good at capital allocation, while Immelt wasn't. Immerzu bought high (oil business) and sold low (NBC etc). Flannel showed his mettle with the sale of household goods for a decent price and with the Baker-Hughes deal. I think they are done with financial, except where it directly ties into their industrial and service business

The Valeant case is very different - Valeant charged an enourmous markup for drugs with somewhat questionable value and in any case for the most part non -life threading diseases. DVA comparatively speaking operates in a low margin business for a life saving treatment. The case is entirely different, except the fact that the pricing is not rational, which imo is a risk to profitability. DVA is in a volume business, where each facility has a significant amount of fixed cost, somin order to make a profits, cost need to be held low and the facility need to run close to its capacity. I think the ability to reduce costs (both capes and variable cost as well as overhead) favors larger players and consolidation into hat now are two major players. Smaller companies and mom and pop business are at an disadvantage here and that is why they tend to sell out to the larger players. I think a business like this will more or less naturally evolve into few players owning large market shares. Neither DVA nor the insurers can afford to really take a hard line and deny treatment - people will do in very short order and just imagine the publicity and the lawsuits. It's not going to happen. What is going to happen is a fight behind the scenes and most likely government intervention. I also think they home dialysis is a long term threat to some extend for the current business model. Yes treatment cost is higher, but clinical outcome is much better for home dialysis (due to more frequent but shorter treatment sessions) and the result is that home dialysis patients tend to remain in the workforce while those going to outpatient places like DVA won't too large extend. If the equipment for home dialysis becomes cheaper, it will become the preferred option, imo. This is not a short term issue, but could become one in ten years. I fail to see why this prevents the private insurers to demand lower rates for dialysis. The current structure that private insurance pays 3-5x more for the same service than the government is certainly not rational. I understand that the government underplays and private insurance overpays to compensate, but this still does not make sense. And how can DVA say no to a private insurance that demand the price to go from 5x to 2x, when they take Medicare patients for a much lower treatment term at the same price. It sounds like an Implicit agreement that is just meant to be broken. Agreed. I think some are just refusing the see the larger picture. It reminds me of people trying to rationalize Valeant charging thousands for a tube of foot cream. "That's how the system works, and if insurance companies demand a lower price then Valeant will just say no" Can someone provide evidence that the MARGINAL client will unprofitable for davita if the private rates go lower by 10%? Seems to me like DVA is making too much money for that to be the case. And if the marginal client is profitable, then I believe Thiry will whine and complain but in the end eat it, not close any centers, and everyone who gets care now will continue to get care. He's trying to get paid, and knows that the larger the company is, the more he can shovel his way.

I fail to see why this prevents the private insurers to demand lower rates for dialysis. The current structure that private insurance pays 3-5x more for the same service than the government is certainly not rational. I understand that the government underplays and private insurance overpays to compensate, but this still does not make sense. And how can DVA say no to a private insurance that demand the price to go from 5x to 2x, when they take Medicare patients for a much lower treatment term at the same price. It sounds like an Implicit agreement that is just meant to be broken.

The biggest risk are not the Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement rates, but that the private insurers wake up and start to negotiate rates down closer to Medicare levels, which are roughly 1/3 of what they pay now. The Government business fills the rooms, but the private insurance business fills the coffers. I also think that LT, the trend will go to home dialysis, since 3 treatments a week does not cut it for the medical outcome. That said, DVA does look very cheap and a lot if not all of the above is already somewhat discounted in the stock price. Also, DVA will Not be able to buy back 10% of their stock every year, unless they are willing to lever up their balance sheet significantly.

The technology business generated $21.5M in operating income last quarter and that number has been falling. I don't think it will fetch $2B - my guess would it half that. $1B would be enough to get rid of most of the debt. The problem is really that the business is not all that good. The contracts they get are mostly fixed price nowadays, which means they make a little if they are right and lose a lot they are not. I think we will see single digits with this stock, possibly today. I bought some a while ago after the verdict regarding the Westinghouse ligitation, but sold when I heard the news about the Sempra CC (Sempra stated that they are well protected against cost overruns in the contract with CBI) - that was a tell tale sign.

Looks like BH is just generating a black zero in operating earnings and all gains come from investments. The restaurant operations have deteriorated quite a bit, costs are up almost 5%YoY and revenues are down. Considering the management issues, BH does not look cheap at all.

I love the "If it works out- you get your money back, if it doesn't' it's gone" type of partnerships. Heads, he wins, tails, we all lose. A great deal, if you can get it.

Can you please elaborate on how you get GE at 15.6 P/E. Roughly $1.6 (and a few cents) earnings on $25.5 stock price.

Bought a starter position in GE. It's an example of an above average quality business with above average balance sheet trading for much less than the market multiple (~15.6x earnings).

Yeah, the thread was revised in a timely manner. I sold my SNI shares with a decent gain and I am not complaining.

Can you truly understand 3 companies you own? I don't even understand the company I am working for, much less the the companies I own. I like to have a good amount of diversification and own 30+ different companies. Somce of these are just stub positions, where I bought a starter with the intend to buy more, if the share prices becomes more attractive and this never happened. I am constantly surprised, which stocks are doing well, compared to what my best idea at that point was. I have basically given up on the whole concept of best idea, I see ideas like a portfolio, you have different train of thoughts that result in actionable buys, but I really don't have any idea, which one is more likely to work out to begin with.

My thought is that this is a once great business with increasing headwinds. The cord cutting rate appears to be accelerating and stands currently at 4% annually. I have cut the cord in our household and found they nobody cared, since everyone was watching mostly streaming services or YouTube. It is very hard to grow the business if you lose 4% of your customers annually. The TV entertainment is just not as relevant any more as it used to be. I sold my DISCK shares, but kept some SNI and FOXA since I have some gains on them (My DISCK shares were more or less flat)

CMG'S niche of " healthy" fast mexican food has gotten more crowded. There are at least 2 competing chains with similar fare in my area and at least one of them has a superior offering to Chipotle.

I think conventional cable is in big trouble, as younger folks develop totally different view habits. We ditched our cable a while ago and hardly anyone noticed since everyone is already mostly watching streaming services anyways. I cancelled Netflix as well and watch Prime. I found plenty on Prime to watch, once we are through, I will turn on Netflix again. I think churn will probably increase across the board for pretty much everything.

As far as stability and reliability is concerned, I rate IB , using either the TWS application or the mobile app (I use the iPad and the Android App) as best in class. I have been able to execute trades in the wildest days of the financial crisis and during the mini crash a couple of years ago, when no other brokerage was able to get anything done (I have fidelity, E*TRADE and Wells Fargo investments). The Turbotax issues is a big nuisance, since the CSV export is lacking. This is not an issues , if you have and IRA account with IB. While the TWS app has become too complex over the year imo; I do most of my trades using the IPad or Android mobile app nowadays and both are fairly straightforward to use.

An insurance agent explained umbrella insurance this way - you want to make sure that the insurance is large enough, such that the insurance company fights tooth and nails legally to prevent an adverse outcome. Beyond that, the total sum does not play such a significant role, since the lawsuit amounts can be totally arbitrary anyways. In most cases, the counterparty will look for a settlement.

Those are good and valid questions. I believe that CBI was overearning from 2010-2015 relative to the current normal and we have a change from variable to fixed price contracts in the new normal that adds to the risk. I believe the new management will clean house and the skeletons (if they exist) will be accounted for with the next 10-q. I believe there is quite a bit that will have to get written off ; also keep in mind that a new management has a substantial incentive to get those things behind them. Disclosure- no position

Interesting story and good lessons here. Not that it matters, since I am a layman, but I followed the financial crisis closely and also could not fathom the extend of it in the beginning. I was not surprised about a few hedge funds blowing up or Countrywide blowing up etc. Living in CA at that time, it was quite clear that there was a lot of froth and fraudulence in subprime. What I did not get is that so much of the same stuff was going on in our core financial institutions and how interrrlated the credit markets are, as well as the issue of reflexivity. It appears to be a result of how the people operate and how in incentives are structured and all the former attractivjng a certain crowd of people that is willing to do almost anything to earn money fast. As long as that is in place, it is all but assured, that those thing will recoccur, but of course I do not know when and the extend of it. We did see quite a bit of panic in the credit markets for energy in late 2015/ early 2016 for example. I think OP's opinion about the EM credit markets is a good one, since we know that these markets can become illiquid really fast, which means that everyone is going to run to the exit, if they see fire or smell smoke, I would love to read theLads book too, should he ever publish one.

Congrats to XAZP and all the longs here. I did not invest, but it is great when a thesis shared freely here works out so well in a short time.