leftcoast

To partly answer my own question, I found this post from April where Packer outlines what he likes about BIP over the other LPs (and the GP):

Hi Packer - Do you mind elaborating on what you like about BIP and BBU? Or conversely, why you're unexcited by BEP and BPY? Is it mostly about the current valuations, or is it the nature of the assets in each?

I noticed that. It was good while it lasted. Fortunately, Microsoft is adding stock quotes to Excel's built-in functionality. Works for most stock markets world-wide, but does not cover other types of securities like warrants and options.

Figured it out... I think the upgrade must have installed a 64-bit version of Excel. It was barfing when trying to load the 32-bit xll file. I replaced it with the 64-bit xll and it works fine now.

Hey rukawa - The GetBloombergData add-in was working great for me for the past 6 months or so and was a nice replacement for the Yahoo SMF add-in. Thanks for sharing it! Unfortunately, when I upgraded to Office 365 last week, the add-in stopped working. Every time I start Excel now, I get the attached dialog box: The file format and extension of 'GetBloomberData-AddIn-packed.xll' don't match. The file could be corrupted or unsafe. Unless you trust its source, don't open it. Do you want to open in anyway? Clicking 'Yes' opens a worksheet full of random characters. Clicking 'No' dismisses the dialog box. But in either case, the getPrice and other add-in functions no longer work. Any thoughts?

It's somewhat encouraging that they're at least trying to do something. But... 1. It'll be interesting to see what the definition of a foreign buyer is. 2. I have a feeling that a lot of trusts are about to be opened in BC. It only applies to people who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. It's the same definition of "foreign" that the BC gov't has started using to measure the impact of foreign buyers. Early data showed that only 3-5% of Vancouver home purchases met this definition of "foreign buyer." The vast majority of foreign capital flowing into Vancouver is coming through immigrants with PR status, and/or Canadian-registered corporations and trusts. So while this new tax will generate big headlines ahead of the upcoming election, it will probably have very little direct impact on the market... which is exactly what Liberal gov't wants. Here's an article from 2 years ago on this exact subject: http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1385078/why-hk-style-property-tax-may-not-cure-vancouvers-china-syndrome

I think you're right about that. EA provides the leagues with confidence and security that their brands will be treated well, just based on historical experience and relationships. (E.g. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM.) But if 2K came to the table next year with significantly more money than EA, would the NFL or FIFA just turn it down? 2K has also proven its ability to make high-quality sports games, and surely understands the potential value of collectible cards and micro-transactions. Why was NCAA canceled? Seems like an odd decision to suddenly cancel your 3rd highest selling game. Answer that, and you'll see the weakness in EA Sports' moat. That is the norm for all micro-transaction games. We call those <10% of people the "whales." In any free-to-play or MTX-based game, the whales provide most of the revenue which keeps the game going for everyone else. Even though 80-90% of the player base never pays a dime, the whales (and the "super-whales") can generate enough revenue to make the game economical. The secret sauce behind all these games is analytics, and much of the effort in analytics is directed to engaging and monetizing whales.

I've worked in the videogame industry for most of my career, and about 6 years of that time was spent at EA, where I shipped many of the sports titles mentioned in this thread, among others. (I'm actually writing this post on a train packed full of nerds headed to Cologne, where Gamescom is happening this week.) Personally, I would not invest in any videogame company, for reasons already mentioned by others. The closest analog to the games business that I can think of is the biotech industry. It's a massively hit-driven business, and nobody can predict in advance which new IP in development is going to be a blockbuster. (Although lots of people seem to make good livings pretending that they can.) It's only after years of heavy investment that you find out whether or not you have a hit on your hands. (You probably don't. Less than 10% of new IPs even turn a profit). And product development costs are relentlessly rising, while prices are not. This is why all videogame companies are desperately seeking new ways to squeeze more revenue from existing customers with new business models like microtransations. And this is why videogame publishers, like pharmas, tend to lean so heavily on derivative products and product line extensions within successful franchises. So that's what makes the EA Sports business such a uinque jewel. As long as EA can continue to outbid all competitors for those exclusive sports licenses, then they have a durable moat, which is extremely rare in this business. But to be clear, their moat is not in the IP itself, which they don't own. The moat is in EA's ability to pay more for that IP than anyone else. That ability, in turn, is based on years of investment in development tech, process, and infrastructure. The production of these games is about as close to a factory operation as you can get in the games industry, and it would take most competitors a few iterations to match EA's development efficiency and product quality. But you only need to look at what happened to the NBA Live franchise to see how wide EA's moat is without the ability to outbid every competitor. In basketball, EA's NBA license is not exclusive... they have a major competitor in 2K Sports (Take-Two). And in 2010, with just one poorly executed sequel, EA gave up all of its market share in basketball. The NBA Live business was decimated, the development team liquidated, and the franchise relocated from Vancouver to Orlando in hopes of reviving it with fresh blood. (But in the process, much of the investment in development know-how was lost.) Five years later, 2K still dominates basketball. Andrew Wilson is a smart man (and a snappy dresser), and he knows the sports business inside-out (he was running FIFA when I was there). I would not bet against him, but I also wouldn't describe him as particularly shareholder-oriented. Honestly, nobody in the games industry is. It's a business run by enormous egos and self-interest. Within months of becoming CEO in 2007, John Riccitello spent almost a billion dollars of shareholder capital to acquire Pandemic and BioWare, companies in which his former private equity firm had invested $400M. EA wrote-down the Pandemic investment less than 2 years later, closed the studios, and laid-off most of the employees. Also take look at the ongoing shareholder lawsuit against Zynga's executive team, many of whom came from EA. Maybe collectible cards and microtransactions will transform the economics of console sports games for the long-term. Maybe that new value will be captured by EA and will not ultimately flow to the sports leagues who actually own the IP. Maybe EA's management will allocate capital productively and shareholders will realize the benefits. But that's too many maybes for me, especially when I'm being asked to pay up now as if all those things have already happened. Anyways, those are my thoughts. Not trying to poop on anyone's idea. It's just that even without the nosebleed valuation, EA will likely always sit in the "too hard" pile for me.

I misread the original quote. The key part (that I missed) is highlighted below: IBC does not accommodate asset swaps or transfers in kind (cash or securities) from a cash or margin account at IBC or elsewhere to an IBC RRSP or TFSA account at this time. So it doesn't say they won't take a transfer-in-kind from another RRSP account, just from non-registered accounts. And as gokou3 pointed out, they later say explicitly that you can fund your RRSP account with a transfer from an RSP at another broker. My bad. Sorry! BTW, Liberty, the way you link your existing IB account to your new accounts is by logging into Account Management and selecting the Manage Account --> Add or Link Accounts, and then Create Linked Account menu options. Once linked, your new RRSP/TFSA account will benefit from a shared user name, security device, and market data subscriptions.

I have 2 non-registered accounts at IB. I am able to access both of them using the same login. There's a little drop down menu on the WebTrader and Acct Mgmt sites that allow you to switch between accounts. I do not have an "Advisor Account."

This is too bad: IBC does not accommodate asset swaps or transfers in kind (cash or securities) from a cash or margin account at IBC or elsewhere to an IBC RRSP or TFSA account at this time. So to transfer my current RRSPs and TFSAs from another broker to IB, I'd need to liquidate all my positions, convert the proceeds to CAD$ (at the bank's larcenous exchange rate), transfer the cash to IB, and then re-build the same positions (hoping that none of them have moved up significantly in the meantime). That's an expensive transfer. Makes more sense to just use IB for future new contributions and leave the existing assets where they are.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/836b1950-a864-11e4-bd17-00144feab7de.html Investors awaiting Warren Buffett’s annual letter will get three for the price of one this year. The founder of Berkshire Hathaway is planning a special “golden anniversary” publication, marking 50 years since he took a controlling stake in the company. Mr Buffett and his business partner, Charlie Munger, are independently writing their views of Berkshire’s extraordinary journey during the past five decades — and what they expect for the next five. Neither is changing a word of the other’s commentary. Readers will be able to compare the two sets of reflections and predictions, in addition to the regular annual letter.

I really enjoyed this one as an aspiring aerospace engineer 20 years ago: Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed by Ben R. Rich It's mostly focused on defense.

That Capital Stock number on the balance sheet is dollars, not shares. If you go to note 9 (on page 9), it states there are ~2.7M shares outstanding at the end of FY 2006.

Hmm. I see the share count holding steady at roughly 3M shares as far back as I can go. Where are you seeing 8.4M shares outstanding? The company's website also shows NAV per share at $87 in 2009.