Jurgis

Allow me a comment on the lighter side here: I like the url reference for that article... it makes it seem as if someone is getting tomorrow's news today (the article itself is dated 11/12... just too bad I guess : ) There's a Freudian innuendo in the title too. ::)

Lol. It looks at some point I'll have Liberty 100 index in my portfolio by just holding various Liberties.

I bought a tiny bit today. Was a coin toss between this, DNOW and NOV. ;) Not that either of the three are easy to value if energy sector continues to be shot. This is not an endorsement, do your own DD and all that.

Maybe. Doesn't help their existing business though.

Oilco prices are melting down together with oil again.

Right. I completely understand the attraction of physical shopping (browsing), so I don't diss brick&mortars. There are tons of things that I and others physical shop and might continue for a while. There's also social aspect of shops and shopping malls that will hold for a while. I was talking purely about "buy online, ship to store". I understand why this is attractive to retailers: lure online buyers to the store, save on shipping costs. But as a customer I hate it.

OT? I've said somewhere else that "buy online and pick up at the store" seems to be dumbest thing ever to me. It's a marriage of two bad parts: you buy online, so you cannot physically touch/see/try on; and you have to pick up at the store, so you have to go to the store wasting time, energy, gas, etc. I want the complete opposite: "buy at home (online) but with physical tryout as if I was at the store and get it shipped to me". This would marry the best parts: physical tryout and no time wasted going to the store. Hate all retailers that try to push me to "buy online and pick up at the store". Anyway, sorry for rant here, it was triggered by that l2inc article. Others might have different opinions and all that. :) I do not have opinion or position in M. Peace.

Thoughts on Bill? Nothing comes in my mouth. Oh wait, you are not talking about Clinton.

While trying to keep this thread not political: what are the reasons for the premium jumps? - Costlier drugs/procedures/etc? (We know some of this on this board) - Merging health insurers throwing their weight and gauging customers? - Doctors/hospitals gauging customers (for whatever reasons)? - Some consequences of ACA (i.e. making insurers cover pre-existing conditions)? - Older/sicklier population? As a data point, my and my wife's employer both raised premiums, but not that much (maybe 10%). This is tech sector 10K+ employee companies. We switched last year from PPO to POS option since that saves ~50% of the premium.

This is a wrong question to ask. Nobody's holding a gun to your head to choose AMZN or IBM. It's possible that both of them are bad investments.

I'll have to see this if it's ever shown on TV/streaming or made into a movie.

Just for fun. :) Looking at http://valueinvestorsclub.com/idea/LIBERTY_VENTURES/137022 and http://finance.yahoo.com/news/liberty-interactive-corporation-reports-third-210500461.html I kinda understand the Liberty Ventures NAV table in VIC writeup. I probably would subtract 200M in DTA value and I would never value operating business at 12x-20x EBITDA (so here goes another 500M or so). This lowers discount to NAV to <10% (is market cap ~6B$ as Yahoo claims?). I don't understand Is he saying that the 20% to NAV discount is all allocated to LBRDK? This does not make much sense to me. Well, also if I assume 5-10% discount to NAV, this is cut a lot. Then this relies on CHTR being undervalued and revaluing up in the future. That's another can of worms. Edit: Plus this requires either shorting EXPE or being fine with EXPE valuation - both of which might be issue for investors. I don't short and I don't think EXPE is cheap to hold. So in short: this is complicated multi-step value proposition. If you believe all the parts are undervalued as author claims, then, yes, it's very attractive. If you don't, then not so much. I think I'll stay with my nominal position. I may be totally wrong though, since it's clearly not an easy stock to value.

It is likely the complexity of analysis required. I own some of various Liberties, but I would not be able to figure out LVNTA intrinsic value. How do you even approach it? There are no SEC fillings for LVNTA. So I go to Liberty Interactive fillings ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355096/000155837015002274/lint-20150930x10q.htm for example ) and there's nothing about LVNTA there either except for shares outstanding things... Head blows up. ;) Edit: I guess you'd have to walk through this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/liberty-interactive-corporation-reports-third-210500461.html Why is this not in 10Q though? Of course, that's what Malone intends with these trackers/etc.

I seem to remember another case widely discussed on this board where relying on a large number of pedigreed investors was not such a good idea... ... but Buffett is different! ;)

Did Thorndike ever talk about survivorship bias? I.e. it seems that it's tough to identify Outsider CEOs during their tenure ( e.g. the company that won't be mentioned - hint it has one of the longest threads on CoBF ;) Oh, hey, there's at least three such companies... ). Is there a tendency for them to blow up - or succeed enormously?

I am sure there is. :) Thanks.

Do you have data to substantiate this or is this anecdotal? They usually have year end review that shows pretty good results of their recommendations absolutely and vs. index. However, the review results are per column, so it's harder to get a total picture. Also their recommendations are not a portfolio, which distorts the results clearly. Overall, I would be hesitant to believe blanket opinions that "Barron's is wrong nearly constantly"

Is SRHL listed/public? Or is it private and the prices are determined through gentlemen's agreement?

If you believe that there are not many opportunities to grow the capital, then FFH is possibly "well placed to do OK whatever happens". My goal is matching or beating the index (but let's not go back to whether this is worthwhile goal). For this FFH may be not well placed in a number of scenarios. :) I do hold a large position of FFH, but I am just not as positive about it as you might be.

Agreed, these are important ingredients that might be reasons not to pay much for FFH (and partially MKL - minus point 3) in current environment. Doesn't that depend entirely on whether they'll lose money as these conditions reverse? Let's say we go back to an environment of 5% rates and these companies can get there without losing BV...well, that's going to do wonderful things for their investment income. So, one needs to look closely at their portfolios. I thought that you argued that 1 and 2 are not going to reverse anytime soon. And we can't know when (if ever) Fairfax will reverse 3. I'd not make an investment predicated on rates going back to 5%+ anytime soon.

Agreed, these are important ingredients that might be reasons not to pay much for FFH (and partially MKL - minus point 3) in current environment.

No, it doesn't. ;) Well, sure you can argue that it does. Obviously Mr. Market is arguing that. For me, MKL was cheaper recently, so that's one data point. Also, there are all the other usual suspects of valuing (re)insurers: no big cats for couple years running, very low bond yields (great bond bull has been a great place for insurers who did not play games), high stock prices. Or let's look at it another way: would you pay 1.5x NAV for a mutual fund that's guaranteed to outperform index by 1-2% a year? Or let's ask it differently: what outperformance would justify 1.5x NAV? Sure, yeah, you can argue that MKL is not a mutual fund, that there's leverage (which may enhance or subtract returns), that it's partially bonds, not pure stocks (but that's more of an argument for lower multiple on NAV, not higher). Anyway, just my opinion. I hold some MKL. But I don't think I'll buy more here. And I expect subpar returns going forward from this price. I would likely to buy more if it drops to 1.2x or so. YMMV. :)

I am not interested in LUK equity, but your bond buy is possibly not bad.

Bill Anders (General Dynamics) +23.3%/year over 17 years versus +8.9%/year for the S&P 500 index, see "The Outsiders" chapter 3 for more info. Right, but revenues did not decline for 17 years. Edit: BTW, yes, Ginny Rometty may be Outsider in progress. It also may be a slow mo crash in progress. Pick your choice.

~20%. Been like that for a while (couple years at least) with some fluctuations up and down. It's not a market call for me. It's more of capital allocation and cash optionality.