Liberty

Yes. Read his book or listen to the podcast linked, it's worth it.

http://time.com/5340545/bill-browder-vladimir-putin-magnitsky-act-donald-trump/ "I'm Bill Browder. Here's the Biggest Mistake Putin Made When Trying to Get Access to Me Through Trump"

The last one about Trump and his company and business deals. Trust me, it's worth watching. https://www.netflix.com/title/80118100?s=i&trkid=13752289

Podcast with Browder: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/death-sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder/

Thanks. Wow. That’s it? Seems like faulty logic. Seems a bit simplistic, yeah. They play in some of the same verticals, but the operational model and future value drivers are pretty different.

New small acquisition: https://www.transdigm.com/investor-relations/news-releases/news-article/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/amazon-providence-xealth-pilot-hospital-discharge.html

Finally watching to talk by Brian Bares that everybody was watching a couple months ago: Good stuff, he's no BS and I like that.

Glad you enjoyed it. I probably should reread it at some point, because I mostly remember liking it, I don't really remember that much what's in it specifically.

Hey, welcome to the board, QuesnelCap. It was nice meeting you in Toronto!

Brookfield Asset Management is investing in the Kushner Companies' flagship building just as its multibillion-dollar purchase of the nuclear company Westinghouse is under government review. More on what's at stake: https://nyti.ms/2uedy0J

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-thailand-cave-boys-rescue-engineering/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-12/how-tesla-s-model-3-became-elon-musk-s-version-of-hell

Can someone explain how they get 40% EBITDA margins?

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/time-2

Presentation by Elliot Turner about IAC and its subs: https://moiglobal.com/elliot-turner-201806/ Slides: https://38cjxsde635anttomvn6z8h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/moat18-elliot-turner.pdf

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/hedge-fund-legend-seth-klarmans-investing-classic-margin-of-safety-.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/hedge-fund-legend-seth-klarmans-investing-classic-margin-of-safety-.html

Seems like it's a negative, but mostly because of increased competition for larger VMSes. I don't think Vista is buying lots of $1-5m businesses the way CSI is.

Acquisition in Australia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/booking-holdings-agrees-to-acquire-hotelscombined-300677574.html

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/its-official-tencent-music-entertainment-is-about-to-float-on-the-stock-exchange-in-the-us/ http://www.tencent.com/en-us/articles/13006461531045381.pdf IPO of music business coming. Also: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/tencent-wegame-hong-kong-1202868400/

A mathematician wakes up to find his house on fire. He frantically looks around before seeing the fire extinguisher on the far wall of the room. "Aha!" he says, "a solution exists!" and goes back to sleep. -- Popular math students' joke

I'm not really interested in it today, but others are free to do so. What are your views on the company's prospects today?

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/07/06/1534131/0/en/Knight-Receives-Adverse-Notice-of-Reassessment-from-CRA.html

Most of this thread is me defending the company at the time, not after the fact, so I "knew" to a high enough degree that it wasn't a fraud at the time to satisfy myself (at the time, I've changed since, so might have different views on various things now). I still didn't really profit from it because I bailed, though. Being right is just part of the game, the patience and conviction to let things play out also matters...

Isn't that what all of investing is, though? Taking positions on things that are of various levels of unknowability? Yes, it is. What I am trying to say that you cannot evaluate even post factum the probability of whether you could have been right vs wrong. Especially in cases of possible fraud. So the Monday morning quarterbacking of "We longs knew all the time it's not fraud" is really based on nothing more than "this time we were right". It could have been 99% chance not-a-fraud, 50% chance not-a-fraud, 1% chance not-a-fraud, the outcome does not tell you which one it was. It's an outcome based bias or whatever it's called. "My analysis is right because the outcome went my way". We're talking about two different things, and that's what's hard with words, they aren't precise enough. If he says he "knew it wasn't a fraud", it means he believed it. Not that he had a crystal ball. Technically, I don't even know that evolution by natural selection is correct, I just assign it a very very high probability. If someone thought with a high enough probably that EBIX wasn't a fraud to put capital on it, then that's a pretty good sign that they really believed it at the time. They "knew" it from the POV of their belief, but they obviously weren't omniscient and "knew" it from some objective point of view (which doesn't exist anyway). It's the same with all investments. You think you know various things about various people, companies, macro, human behavior, etc. But do you know any of it to 100% certainty? No. So when someone takes a bet and turns out to be right, it's still being right even if at the time there was uncertainty or if at some point it could be said that the odds looked against them. When you get to the outcome, the probabilities collapse, right? 5 years ago, EBIX wasn't a shrödinger's fraud, fraud and not fraud at the same time. It always was not a fraud. So he was actually correct to think it wasn't a fraud at the time, even if he was basing the belief on incomplete information. It's also possible that his analysis and information were much better than yours, so looking back things seem like they were very uncertain to you, but looking back to him/her, it seemed a lot less uncertain.