Parsad

Its the same with RIM. Being the incumbent smartphone leader, they would've realized the value of the iPhone when they saw it. They could've started development early on and would've at least had a fighting chance. Instead they dismissed it, saying it consumed too much power, wasn't secure enough, etc and didn't bother developing an alternative until it was too late. Even when they did eventually develop one, they did a half-assed job. Now, they're giving it another shot. I agree with you. Saying that the tech industry is a race where the most innovative company wins is a gross oversimplification. In fact, the opposite is true for most of the time. Historically, it is the fast follower that has reaped the benefits. Microsoft, Google(non-search), Intel, etc weren't the most innovative companies in every product line. They won marketshare because of their business practices, not their innovation. Agree and disagree with you here. Google didn't develop search, but they made it superior. Even their non-search products are game changers...software in the cloud, rather than installed on the computer...gmail, word, picassa, etc...and by far the biggest is GoogleAds. Microsoft and Intel both had huge market share and it is simply very difficult to dislodge them...whether they innovate, follow or stand still. Even in that respect, Google search and GoogleAds has the same sort of moat. When I was discussing RIMM and using the word innovate, it was in terms of companies that don't have huge, near monopolistic moats. Kodak had a moat, but in film...not digital media. Sears had a moat in brick and mortar retail...but not online retail. Game changing, disruptive innovation killed them. That's why I was saying that RIMM needed a game changer. Their moat is disintegrating quickly and just shoring it up won't do. They need something completely different to survive. Cheers!

What I was saying was that they have to continue to innovate to be competitive. What company doesn't? Is this a rhetorical question, or are you trying to goad me into something? Did Kodak do a good job of innovating? What about Sears? Or how about Yahoo? Just because we breathe and walk on two legs, doesn't make us Michael Jordan!

I didn't say they were comparable. What I was saying was that they have to continue to innovate to be competitive. Microsoft had 90% of the computers running their operating system, so it will take years and years to kill that moat. In the meantime, MSFT does everything they can to maintain that moat...Windows 8 on different platforms is an example...it will maintain the moat a while longer. Whereas RIMM had nowhere near that type of market share, and their moat deteriorated very quickly. Even if they continue to innovate, it will now be difficult to stop the tide, as so many users are switching at a faster and faster pace. By the way, I'd say you are wrong about that number on Microsoft's operating system. It is considerably less than 90% now. Probably closer to 70%. And it will take another decade to get that well below 40%. Cheers!

Am I mis-reading something between the article and annual reports? I actually get his annual return ending December 31, 2011 to be about 22.7% annualized since inception. Which is fantastic nonetheless, but markedly different than the 40.5% annualized the article states. His unit value ending December 31, 2011 was 28.74 and his opening unit value was 10.00 on November 9, 2006, so over roughly 5.15 years that works out to 22.7% annualized. Cheers!

Are they? Remember, it was just a bit of luck that prevented Microsoft from blowing $40B on Yahoo! That bit of luck was Jerry Yang's stupidity. ;D Microsoft is no longer on top, but they aren't falling off a cliff like RIMM either. I think he means in the gaming industry. Nintendo lost out. Well in terms of game consoles, Kinect was a game changer. It took the remote control completely out of the equation and was the fastest selling electronic appliance in history at the time. The technology will continue to create some pretty amazing scenarios for gaming going forward. Cheers!

Are they? Remember, it was just a bit of luck that prevented Microsoft from blowing $40B on Yahoo! That bit of luck was Jerry Yang's stupidity. ;D Microsoft is no longer on top, but they aren't falling off a cliff like RIMM either. Their moat was just so large that it has taken a long time to dethrone them. And it still may take another decade to completely do that. Remember Buffett saying that if someone gave him $100B to dethrone Coca-cola, he said it could not be done. Microsoft is not Coca-cola, but the moat was significantly larger than most technologists and investors thought. Cheers!

How? Need to differentiate in emerging markets. Why does GM sell the most cars in China? Because they are better or more popular than BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, Volkswagen or Ford? What they need is a prayer: http://blog.flurry.com/bid/83261/China-Now-Leads-the-World-in-New-iOS-and-Android-Device-Activations It can be done, but you need a game changer. Look at Nintendo with their Wi, which totally changed the face of home video games and restored Nintendo. But you have to continue to innovate and stay ahead of the competition, otherwise you get an Xbox Kinect that will destroy your moat. This is the same issue with Apple. To stay in the lead, they can't just be good or on par...they have to be great! Technology moats breakdown very quickly. RIMM's reign on top wasn't even three years ago. Today, they are quickly becoming obsolete. They need a game changer! Cheers!

Yup! There is a best manager every year in the media. Cheers! Those kind of returns in one of the most brutal 5 years in decades are impressive. Micheal Burry had similar returns after 5 years. I don't know how long one has to be a manager before he or she is officially good and not lucky but what would worry me as an investor in his fund is his Madoff-like secrecy. I wasn't picking on him. I was picking on the title of your thread! ;D Cheers!

Yup! There is a best manager every year in the media. Cheers!

How? Need to differentiate in emerging markets. Why does GM sell the most cars in China? Because they are better or more popular than BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, Volkswagen or Ford? A brand can become ubiquitous when it starts to mean something. People don't buy Apple products or Coca-cola only because they are of better quality. It's the brand mostly...the experience! Cheers!

Yes, this is something that I really need. I read so much on my iPhone. Apparently it will have a 4.6" retina screen and will be available in the 2nd quarter...I'm guessing 3rd, but that's what this article says. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/mobile-technology/apple-orders-bigger-46-inch-screens-for-next-iphone-report/article2377639/

I was watching "Dragon's Den" yesterday, and they had some of the deals that were made in the last two years. In one segment shot in 2010, all of the Dragons pulled out their Blackberries, and then one said..."Everyone's got to have a Blackberry!" I chuckled to myself and said just two years...just two years later! They are toast in North America. They've got to fortify the brand in emerging markets, as they've already lost the battle here. Cheers!

Hardincap, there is your answer. Bac has 12 per share of TBV and over 20 BV, once goodwill can be assumed ok. Rather than waiting for BAC to buy back shares, you can buy as many as you want at a price cheaper than BAC will ever get. you're missing my point. I WANT bac to buy back shares at these valuations alongside me. Would you rather they blow through capital to buy back shares or actually strengthen the business? Unless you plan on selling your shares shortly after, I would think you would prefer the latter if you are a long-term shareholder. It's a leveraged business that had serious issues just a year and a half ago. Everything is not ok. They are recovering and it will take another year to truly have a business that can compete head on with JPM and WFC. They are not in the same league right now, but will be if they continue to build capital. If they do what you are asking, then they are risking a step back if economic conditions deteriorate or litigation and losses are higher than provisioned. Cheers!

JPM does not have billions in litigation coming up, and their business is not going through a complete restructuring. BAC's turnaround is more than half-way done, but they need to drive earnings forward while dealing with the overhang of litigation and loan loss provisions from the previous leadership group. The more solid the balance sheet, the more confidence the markets have. Look at what one stress test did for them! Can you imagine if they plow right through 11% in Tier 1 Common before their main competitors? They added over one whole percent in the 4th quarter, so the cash flow and assets are there to get the job done. Once they hit that, the stock will move up and then they can spend their cash flows growing their business. Cheers!

Use Fairfax as a guide. Prem took care of the business instead of buybacks, and the stock price followed. BAC needs to make sure their balance sheet can withstand almost any liquidity crisis that would hurt their peers...so is it better they buy back shares or focus on strengthening their balance sheet? My choice is the latter, and the stock price will follow over time. Buybacks should only happen once you've taken care of everything else and have excess capital, and then at that point you have to decide if your stock is cheap to intrinsic value and there is no other better alternative. You don't buy back shares just because they are cheap, but because there is no other use for the capital that would provide a better return. Currently, BAC can use all the capital they can get to quell any sort of innuendo or rumour. Look at how one comment created such a whirlwind this week. They just need to shut the critics up and give them no excuse whatsoever, and that will happen after 2012. Just like it did at Fairfax! Cheers!

Warren, to his great credit hasn't said anything publicly about the rift with Alice. Warren's instructions to Alice were to tell it all, including the personal stuff, without sugar coating anything. In this, she followed his instructions. After publication, the other women in his life disliked having the unflattering parts of his life exposed for the world to see, especially the sadness of all the circumstances about his first marriage and Susan's death. It was especially hard for them when Ms Schroeder departed from her usual objectivity and characterized the other women in Warren's life as "Daisy Mae's", meaning bimbo groupies. That was the straw that broke the back of their patience. Warren then had no choice. It was risk the wrath of one woman being scorned or having every other woman in his family and circle being mad at him. I also think the parts about his wife upset him a bit. The long-held theory was that Buffett was the womanizer and cheated on Susan, when in fact Susan had drifted apart and left Buffett. From what I heard, he did not want that to come out and his children were upset with it as well. Regardless, I thought the great aspects of the book were overshadowed by the soap opera like inferences Schroeder kept making...his crazy mother, his need to be loved, his relationship with Susan and Sue Graham. Too much psychoanalysis! Cheers!

They want to end all doubts about capital and Basel III, so they are going to just continue to build the balance sheet this year. When they apply to return capital next year, they won't have any issues. Cheers!

Not bad. Some commodities looking good, and some getting killed. Intermodal looks nice! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-22/north-american-rail-freight-carloads-for-march-17-table-.html?cmpid=yhoo

I think you've got it exactly right Compoundinglife! If you recommended to a family member or friend on why they should read a book on Buffett, and they read this article, how compelling does your argument suddenly become to them. In effect, the article does such a disservice to the individual whose investing life and results could be dramatically improved. I think that's why it's such a shame that the individual who wrote the article, who actually spent an enviable amount of time with Buffett, walked away only with the thought of how hypocritical his advice is. Quite a tragedy actually! Maybe we've been looking at this all wrong, and Alice deserves our pity, rather than our scorn. Cheers!

The proof is in the pudding. Let's wait and see what changes happen, and how it drives traffic and sales. I like where he's from, because they need someone who understands Overstock's demographic. I'm disappointed, like others, that he came from a business that is struggling and it's hard to decipher his work against the business' results. Like I said, let's wait and see. Besides, having marketing out of Patrick's hands is already really good news! Cheers!

Ah, that's not Alice...don't know why guys think so, or did Shalab and Kraven just create a mess! ;D Incidentally, on Alice's own blog, from her January 11th entry: "...Another reason I have not written much lately is that there isn't much I want to say about Buffett or Berkshire. At some point, people have accomplished enough in their career that they should get to rest on their laurels, meaning that it isn't appropriate to comment on every little thing they do and say. If anything important happens, I'll write about it -- probably for Bloomberg -- and post the link here..." She took her own advice for about two months and then she wrote this diatribe. My whole point was exactly what she finally got into her head for a while. At some point, the poor slob has done enough for society and others to just deserve to go out in dignity. You don't need to de-robe the guy, just because you can. You can call me a fanatic...but Buffett changed (maybe saved is a better word) my life! I get to do exactly what I want every day and if I died tomorrow, I would be a happy man. So would Prem, Francis, Tim, Mohnish, hundreds on this board and I know a couple thousand more. We owe the man...so we do take offense at times. Cheers!

Focus, lean, mean...continue to build up capital. Cheers! http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120321-709055.html

If she was as vicious as you paint her as, why would buffett's own son like her? Which son? Howard didn't like the way he was portrayed. From what I understand, both Susie Buffett and Howard Buffett didn't like the way their mother was portrayed, and that was the bulk of the reason Buffett's relationship with Alice deteriorated. As well, I spoke to a few other Buffett authors in Omaha shortly after the book came out, and they were all taken aback by some of the details in the book. You can call them fanatics too if you like, but the general tone of those around Buffett or knew the man was not positive on "The Snowball". Cheers!

1) Would you say her notoriety as an analyst increased significantly after Buffett started to solely speak to her at Berkshire meetings, or would you say it decreased? Had you heard of Alice before that? Would you say her notoriety after writing "The Snowball" increased or decreased? 2) She took a pay cut to write the book. How much do you think she made from the book, or her speaking engagements after? That's like saying Buffett took a pay cut after leaving Graham-Newman to start the Buffett Partnerships. And by the way, its got nothing to do with the so-called "fanatics". The fanatics read the book and really none of us complained much about the gossipy side of the biography. It's the stuff after the book that has really left a bad taste for many people. No one is saying Buffett isn't flawed, but Alice seems to be intent on kicking him around when he gave her such access that most other authors could only dream of. Her job was to write the biography, warts and all...not pound the man with her fists every other article. Cheers!

no, criticism is one thing, lack of insight is another. her psychology is monumentally ill-suited for someone like buffett & munger. might as well have asked cramer or some other fast money trader to have done his biography. therein lies whatever disappointment WEB or his admirers might have for Alice. Ive spoken with her on numerous occasions in person, have heard munger & his crew opine on her and her book, and i completely disagree with everything you said. id say shes similar to munger in many ways. I've heard her in person as well, and I can't agree with you at all. She is in no way similiar to Munger. I couldn't believe the stuff she was talking about in her presentation on Buffett. It started off well and then fell apart ending in answers regarding his emotional state, vices and hypocrisies. Have you ever heard Munger say anything about Buffett or his insecurities? Munger is blunt and has plenty of criticisms regarding behavior and ethics, but he doesn't stoop to innuendo or unqualified psychobabble about a person's mental state. Cheers!