Jurgis

3 past threads: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/anyone-have-experience-with-tax-lien-sales/msg243175/#msg243175 http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/tax-liens/msg37327/#msg37327 http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/tax-title-sales/msg171365/#msg171365 (maybe last one is not exactly what you are asking, not sure).

Best sellers don't make one non-hack. BTW, I don't dispute that some of his facts/stories are interesting. It's how he writes that I object. And I personally don't give a crap what you think about what I did or did not do in my life. Have a good one.

Q2: http://www.effnetplattformen.se/pdf/se/interimreports_2016_q2_swe.pdf With the price runup my concern is that this is 5 person company that's getting royalty stream that may grow/stabilize/shrink. I'm not sure they can/will develop anything new that would significantly add to that royalty stream. So that leaves investments in small Swedish co's as the future business model. If you look at it as investment company, the P/B is way high. Yeah, I know you have to adjust for the royalty stream business, so it's not clear cut, but still... Disclosure: I have a position.

Hmm, that kinda sucks. Assuming this is somewhat fair comparison, you have to lug around 1.4x weight. Doesn't that shoot the energy efficiency to smithereens? Yeah, I know price-wise fuel-only you still probably come out ahead in gas vs. electricity cost. But I'm talking about pure joule to joule comparison with losses included. Was this ever asked to Musk? (Sorry my physics is rusty, I'm sure resident experts will chime in)

The fastcompany article above is a word vomit by some hack in love of himself and his supposed writing prowess.

Ok that's true, but shouldn't then P1 be discounted again to P0? According to an admittedly simplified Dividend Growth Model: P0 = D1/(r-g) ~ (D2/(r-g))/r ? The point is, could the market in the 1960s e.g. had predicted current earnings from 2016 and then discounted them correctly. It would be cool to have 40y rolling eps predictions to see the possibly permanent underrating of g or overrating of r. I think you are still confused. Even if market correctly predicts and discounts all the growth and earnings, the value at year zero (e.g. 1960) is different from value at year 1 (e.g. 1961). For some reason you keep thinking that if you make perfect predictions, then value doesn't change as time passes. However, it does. Play around with DCF calculator (this for example http://moneychimp.com/articles/valuation/dcf.htm ). Write your own. Maybe that will convince you that what I say is true. :) E.g. plug in into DCF calculator, FCF of 1, the growth of 5%, discount rate of whatever, 30 years of growth, then no growth. That gives you the value of security - in your case the whole market - at year zero. Then plug in into DCF calculator FCF of 1.05 (it grew 5% as you predicted), same discount rate, 29 years of growth, then no growth. That gives you the value of security at year one. Have fun

Every thread is a drinking thread, compadre. 8)

OT. Population growth: yeah, it's gonna slow and stop. And it might be an issue... if we don't get immortality and intelligent machines fast. We can get both. With current population growth predictions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth ) we may get both before population stops growing. (And yeah we may blow ourselves up too).

That's not true. You misunderstand PV calculations. Assuming stable growth and stable interest/discount rate, PV0 is not going to be equal to PV1. That's true even if you and every participant of the market have perfect knowledge and know g and r until eternity. Edit: PV0 won't be the same as PV1 even if growth ceases at some point in the future.

Assuming no inflation, you can value market as growing perpetuity ( http://www.pitt.edu/~schlinge/fall99/example_growth.htm ): PV0 = C0 / ( r - g ) Since C grows at rate g, your PV next year will be: PV1 = C1 / ( r - g ) == C0 * ( 1 + g ) / ( r - g ) Voila your market price just went up g%. Now, maybe you will argue that inflation should have gone up g% too, but that's not necessarily true IMO. I'll let my chauffeur address this issue ( https://natarajank.com/2014/06/27/joke-of-the-day-my-chauffeur-will-answer-your-question/ ).

Yeah, having spouse that supports you emotionally and financially as you go for second act is definitely a big plus.

I think what oddball says is that's it's easy(ier) to change career into something that doesn't pay bills if you are independently wealthy from the previous career (or drug deals 8) ). If you've done OK - let's say tech, let's say couple hundred K in savings but not big Ms - the switch is not that easy. Yeah, on one hand you have some foundation, you have experience, you have some network, you can try to switch to something "your dream" & risky & maybe won't pay bills. OTOH, if it doesn't work out, your retirement might be shot or at least way lower if you did not try to switch. I'm not saying switch or don't switch. I agree with Picasso that it's very much a personal choice and for some people switch makes great sense, for others it doesn't. For some people, it's do the dream in 20's and become programmer in 40's, for some other way around. I don't think there's much to talk about in abstract. If someone I knew was contemplating this, I'd see what I could advise.

Yeah, I realize. Just talking about second acts in general, in both directions, not just one direction you mentioned. (pun intended).

There's a lot of musicians who became programmers or other tech careers. My guess it's the difficulty of making it as a musician and the brains-and-a-bit-of-creativity + ez-money of programming/tech that makes this rather popular switch.

Money magazine (I know I know people here probably gonna snob it, but it has some good tips and it's free for miles) has an ongoing section about these covering concrete examples. Mostly professional people to entrepreneurs, i.e. starting your own business, but I think there were some articles about career to other career jumps too. I think it's not a new idea/phenomenon. I've seen tech people who go to teaching yoga or something like that. That's of course opposite of entrepreneurism: you use your tech nest egg to do something you like but which pays crap. Gotta run, maybe more later.

Thanks for the tip, guv'nor. I see some great reviews on http://www.bumwine.com/wildirishrose.html http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html Gonna grab couple and chug them down while doing back alley prowl for Pokemons.

You must be a broker. If he's not, he's gonna be soon. ::) You nerds need to live a little. It's ok to have some drinks, even if Warren doesn't. :) Not a broker. Business owner. Original post was a joke, but since you care... :) I live just fine TYVM. :) Couple drinks per day is a way to alcoholism and other medical problems. It's your life though. We care and we wish you well, but it's your choice after all. ;) And yeah maybe you gonna be just fine. Have fun and good luck.

I can only drink sweet (desert) wines. Dry (or even semi) wines don't work for my digestion.

You must be a broker. If he's not, he's gonna be soon. ::)

I won't vote since poll is misleading IMO. :) I have beer once a week or so, but did not have one last week. I haven't done other drugs apart from caffeine. ;)

Not bad ideas.

I'll start with b) - how is this much different from current situation? Institutions vote "for" mostly anything on the slate and will continue to do so even if your proposal is adopted. The only improvement is the few "say on pay" proposals that got rejected would have real teeth. But will institutions be even more scared to vote against if rejecting proposal may mean that CEO says "screw it" and leaves? You did not mention it in b), but you could also enforce a yearly voting: some companies now have "say on pay" every 3 years only. a) is not bad, but unintended consequence is that CEOs will just double their salary so they take home the same amount of cash (and the rest goes into stock piggy bank). IMO it's very tough to design a system that works against adversarial opponent (in fact there are provably unsolvable situations against adversarial opponents in game theory IIRC). Ideally we should get to the level where CEO is not an adversarial opponent, but such cases are quite infrequent.

IMO (re)insurance would harden significantly in two possible cases: 1. Global financial crisis + somewhat high cat season or two. This is Prem's scenario: business hardens because capital on sidelines is not there. 2. Like WhoIsWarren said - way outsized cat losses because of climate change perhaps. Something that scares the capital big. BTW, Spillo says "hurricane season". If you read Fairfax Q2 report, you may realize that major cats this year are events that you probably haven't even heard about - or associated with being big cats. At least that's the impression I got. But perhaps you guys follow the cats more than I do. ;)

was he even born? Obviously he went back in time. He used the Tesla that comes with a flux capacitor. That is the model which has an incredible battery that can deliver 1.21 gigawatts to the flux capacitor for time travel. Manufactured in the gigafactory of course. It's model E. You can order it for 2025, it's gonna be made in 2030, and delivered to you in 2018.

was he even born? Obviously he went back in time.