Liberty

Q4 is out: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PCLN/3828646825x0x930186/174BE39C-0896-4C7D-AE5F-365D43855DCB/PCLN_Group_Earnings_Release_Q416.pdf

I understand that growing cities have more pressure on pricing, and that old buildings get torn down over time to be replaced by new ones. I just think that there are many places in the world where the same factors are present yet prices are nowhere near what they are in Toronto and Vancouver.

It's the lot that ultimately matters, not the dwelling itself. For example, there are plenty of shoddy looking homes in my area that have recently been sold for likely $million+ prices, but they are being taken down to build condos. Those shoddy-looking homes happen to sit right next to a main subway stop. Taking out a couple of shabby homes for a few million dollars each to build a 200 unit condo selling at average prices of $400-500K/unit is a slam dunk for developers - if they can get the requisite permitting. Sometimes that's the case, but prices for houses and condos across the whole region are crazy and it's not condo developers and chinese princelings buying everything. Many of the houses you see are in residential neighborhoods full of other tiny houses on tiny lots, nothing much above 1-2 stories on the horizon. I doubt the whole neighborhood is getting razed and massive towers are being built there in every case.

More discussion of FB: http://exponent.fm/episode-105-the-most-political/

Wow, that's a really big investment.

Welcome to the forum, thank you for your well thoughtful intro. Cheers!

It's not the land in every case, the whole city isn't being demolished. And buying these tiny parcels of land at these prices and then spending a boatload more to build doesn't seem more financially sane to me.

This is normal... And the best for last:

They had stopped their previous offering when Andrew Left published his piece, so that's probably them getting back to it.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/pai-proposes-removing-charter-twc-overbuild-condition/163581

http://www.bnn.ca/canada-s-financial-watchdog-warns-lenders-against-bundled-mortgage-loans-1.679621

Thank you, that's much better.

I'm seriously considering going to the CSU AGM this year (April 28, to be officially confirmed later in march, but that's what I was told by the CFO). Anyone else here going?

$90m acquisition: http://www.transdigm.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196053&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2248221

You've probably somehow requested the desktop view. You can do that at the bottom of the mobile page or by long-holding the reload button. Not sure how to go back, as I prefer the desktop view.

So many strawmen and so much projection, we're not even talking about the same thing... If we ever meet, let's discuss this over a beer or whisky.

Probably. Wasn't looking at it as an investment. It's not all about stocks in life. When it comes down to it, Facebook is an advertising company. I'm not sure an ad company should have this much global power. Might be fine for ten years, but it doesn't sound like such a good idea to have it entirely entrench itself...

That's what I was about to say. I've heard about so many of these breakthroughs over the years, but nothing came of it. I am extremely skeptical. They're usually good for a nice article and nice PR for the idea of carbon capture and then nothing.

I disagree, I think Thompson's arguments are much stronger than yours, and his position and prescriptions aren't even that extreme when you consider how a single controlling shareholder will control the platform on which a very very large fraction of global communications and access to news will take place, on a medium where things are pushed to people rather than pulled. You also project positions on Thompson that he doesn't actually hold. He even said that FB had incentives to try to stay fair and that he thought Zuckerberg had good intentions, but massive centralization of power + strongest network effect the world has ever seen + unforeseen consequences + implicit biases might be something we'll regret down the road. A lot of the things that you like about Facebook should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be given total carte blanche to own people's digital lives, which are increasingly just as real and important as their offline lives. Facebook is a business, and it might not always be so benign or run by trustworthy people. Of course the business argument if you're just thinking about that is for facebook to be left alone, but as someone who likes liberty and dislike those with too much power, I'm not sure that the best argument from a societal point of view. Industrial-era regulation isn't adapted to digital world. I think social graph portability should be a minimum so that people can at least own the IP of their "real world social networks" and use them on whichever service they want to use, rather than be trapped to the one that got critical mass first in this winner-takes-all networked world. That'd at least create the possibility of an escape valve if things go really bad, and it would keep FB on its toes a bit.

Either Ted and Todd got more play money, or Buffett got involved. More likely T & T, though, but will probably find out at some point soon. Munger makes it sound like the recent AAPL buy might indeed have been Buffett, convinced by T&T:

Omaha seems nice to me. Good place for an introvert who likes routine and to be left alone :)

Did the article change your mind about this topic?

https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/

I knew you'd get the reference. But I still mean every word... What is going on with you two? Scott had a few thread titles designed to get people to click through recently, and so I playfully wrote this: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/wrong-again-idiots/msg289606/#msg289606 When I used a similar approach for this thread, he wrote the same thing to me.

I knew you'd get the reference. But I still mean every word...