Parsad

Just want to inject in there. I work for one of the banks and most of the time analysts are looking for 12-month projection of target prices. Being a value investor would mean waiting out longer than a year and that's the reason why it would be difficult for an analyst to put a recommendation that is "against the trend". It would then seem that the target price is decided first, then the fundamentals used to justify the price, rather than the other way round. That's also why you see some analysts agreeing with us "over the long term" but still recommend the other side of the trade. Also an analyst is incentivise to put out a report that sells and sometimes that would subconsciously mean putting out a report that is popular rather than being right. Hi Benny, that was my main point about the disconnect between analysts and investing. They are incentivized to take the short-term view, which often involves time arbitrage on being correct...thus they have such terrible records. Investors with a long-term horizon do not take on such risk, and thus behave very differently. Cheers!

you don't post much on SD, but looks like u have done some work! I don't post much on it. I've been following it since Fairfax started investing in it, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Even after reading all the various posts, articles, etc, as well as the 10-Q's and 10-K's, it just seems like a very complicated way to make money. Then you include the issues around compensation, related party transactions, debt, etc and it's a 10-foot hurdle. Cheers!

Fairfax is going into the real estate business with some flair! I think they should just acquire all of KW and bring Bill McMorrow in house. I hope Bill comes to our dinner this year, because I think our guests are going to have plenty of questions. Cheers!

To 12 states so far. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/got-sauvignon-amazon-com-starts-154703077.html;_ylt=AkLG7goDrLZ0A537KldMqf6iuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTRwNHMza2hkBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yaWVzIG1peGVkIGxpc3QEcGtnAzliMjA5NDJjLWFkODYtMzI0ZC1hODNhLTA4MDQ3MTBhNDBkNQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFCTGlzdE1peGVkTFBDQVRlbXAEdmVyA2IwMWVhZTAwLTI5YmItMTFlMi1iZjlmLWFmZjcwYmQwNzAyOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Thanks Thom! If these guys were so accurate, then why did it take them so damn long to upgrade this thing from hold to buy? ;D Analysts want to be perfect and accurate. Investing is never perfect and accurate. There is an innate disconnect from what analysts do and what actually happens in markets. With BAC, like most stocks, the simple argument is often the correct one. They are running off poor loans, and settling litigation...those costs will decrease over time. They are writing better quality loans, and tightening the corporate culture and how they do business...that will increase the operating income of the company over time. In between, they are cutting costs to get the business as efficient as possible. The stock will continue to go up until it comes close to book value, at which point, the value will be based on how the business is run hence forward relative to their peers. Everything else is just an estimate until tested in the real world and the actual results come in. Cheers!

LOL! ;D Cheers!

Incidentally, TPG did all that number crunching but did they even check to see what it would cost shareholders to terminate Tom Ward...about $100M! They would have been better off working for change in the compensation structure with Tom and the board, than filing a 13-D. Cheers!

I thought that was a very, very weak response! TPG has some merit in their argument. Not removing Tom, since Sandridge is Tom Ward, but the compensation structure there and at Chesapeake is what has kept me from owning any of either company. I don't know...you see CEO compensation like Buffett and Watsa, or even Patrick Byrne, and then even to a degree like Brian Moynihan where he takes less and it's tied to his performance...and then the numbers relative to the size of company ARE shocking at Sandridge. I'm also not a fan of such huge related party transactions...just a no-no in my mind...separation of state and church you know...you're CEO so there is a certain level of protocol and restraint in the size and scope of related party transactions. Cheers!

As suggested by finetrader. Commodities (and the worst one like ATPG and I sold OSTK for this crap) And VXX Doh! Alertmeipp...after everything we've been through, you sold OSTK? Don't worry, we all have rough years, but it's a marathon, not a sprint...except for Ericopoly who will be out of the game in 2015! Cheers!

I can't remember which filing I read it in, but it was one of the 8-K's that BBY had given him 60 days, plus any extension, to make the first proposal. After that, he can file another proposal in January if the first one is rejected, and then again at the shareholder meeting. With the price where it is, the meeting coming up, and the 60 days closing or past, he has to make a play. Regardless of whether he does or not, I still thought it was cheap and bought some. Cheers!

If it was ever divested, the cash would end up in BAC's account. If it was spun off, you could just exercise the warrant and receive your portion of Merrill. You don't lose. Cheers!

What a friggin' joke! He's one of the speakers at the Spring VIC in Vegas. That distaste from listening to Chanos and Herb Greenberg at the first VIC call Fairfax a fraud, just came back...I've never attended since, and never will. Cheers!

I would guess that members on this board probably own 5-7m BAC warrants. I would bet that there is a fair amount of equity owned too. I'm going to write a letter to Brian Moynihan and tell him about the little cult following here! Cheers!

A chip off the old block! I agree...Munger is probably very proud. Cheers!

Paulson owns 30.7 m CI Investments owns 10.6m Highfields Capital Mgmt - 9.9m Fairholme 9.8 m Firefly Value Parners - 6.7 m Ig Investment Mgmt - 4.5m Chou Associates - 4.3m ... Chou America Mgmt - another 0.659 m Paulson was probably selling today! ;D You should also ask Ericopoly how many he owns, because it might not be that much less than Francis! Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other? Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined. By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc. What is average, good and great to you guys??? This doesn't look too super. :P http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX That's exactly what I said above Paul: If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers! In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour. If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours? The argument just doesn't jive. I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin. Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients: - If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? - They pull money right at the bottom almost every time! - They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough! - They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments). - We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent! That being said, I love the business. I love what I do. And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital! Cheers! Ah, I didn't read enough into your definitions there. My bad. You bring up some valid points with regulation, client redemptions, etc. So, you guys think that Buffett, who coined the term, would consider this guy along the lines of his crew? Most of the guys he was talking about were at 10%+ vs the index. Personally, I think we throw the term around too much. "Superinvestor" should be something special. I'm too passionate about this stuff, I think. haha I would argue that if you are working a ton and you didn't beat the market by a really good amount (say 5%), you are the opposite of a superinvestor. Hard work means squat if you can't beat an index that you play in after fees. And you better do it be a good amount if people are gonna call you super. If I started a fund and just invested in a small cap value etf and didn't tell anyone, I would be called a superinvestor too. For what it's worth, I would say this guy is a really good investor. Not exactly great, or super though. Put it this way. Van Den Berg's record is almost as good as Peter Cundill's, and Buffett said that the type of manager that they would look for at Berkshire would be like Cundill. So are they superinvestors? You'd have to ask Buffett. Are they great investors, good enough for Berkshire, and probably outperform 99% of fund managers over the long-term...most definitely! Cheers!

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself! ;D Cheers! I hope you skip the part about dating your dead son's gf. :P No kids...it's all good! Cheers!

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself! ;D Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other? Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined. By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc. What is average, good and great to you guys??? This doesn't look too super. :P http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX That's exactly what I said above Paul: If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers! In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour. If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours? The argument just doesn't jive. I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin. Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients: - If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? - They pull money right at the bottom almost every time! - They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough! - They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments). - We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent! That being said, I love the business. I love what I do. And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital! Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. Yeah, I don't think Kraven could have explained that any simpler. If I buy the Denver Broncos, does that make me one of the greatest quarterbacks ever like Peyton Manning? If I invest in Berkshire Hathaway, does that make me a superinvestor like Buffett, because I achieved the same results as him? Big, big difference! If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers!

Hi A_Hamilton, Yup, I received your payment. You are good to go! Cheers!

Yeah, Racemize that must be it. Click on the arrow and that section will reappear. Cheers!

Anyone still own Best Buy? We tried to load up on Monday...a bet on Schulze making a bid in the coming week...got some, but didn't get what we wanted at the price we had it out at. Up about 10% since then. It's dirt cheap under $15, and I suspect there will be a bid at $21-24 in the next week or two. If he can get it, he needs to start shutting down underperforming stores and cutting costs. Couldn't believe how cheap this thing got. Silly price. Cheers!

Should be just under your username when you are logged in: "Hello (username)" Show unread posts since last visit. Show new replies to your posts. Both the unread posts and new replies should highlight when you hover over them, and then link you if you click on them. Nothing has changed and no recent updates. Cheers!

It's not that he doesn't like Jack Welch. He's just interjecting in a debate and trying to enlighten...kind of like how everyone on here does! ;D Cheers!