Liberty

It is planned: http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-pickup-truck-2013-11 Wouldn't be surprised if after the Model 3 they came out with another smaller model based on the 3 platform and then a larger F150-style electric pickup truck.

I don't think lawnmower companies quite have the R&D capabilities that Tesla, Apple, or even Nissan and GM have... Also, people care a lot more about their cars (and smartphones) than about the hedge trimmer. But that'll trickle down to them, just like laptop and smartphone battery R&D is now helping EVs.

ICE is inferior in almost every way. Less torque, more lag, more complexity, more maintenance, more fluids and parts that can break. You have to stop at the gas station rather than charge overnight or while parked at the office (nobody drives 24/7, there's plenty of downtime to charge and you almost always drive off with a full charge). EVs are also less noisy, less polluting, lower center of gravity, can be made safer (not a huge iron mass right on front of you when you hit something), more can be done with software (including upgrades), can be made to have more interior and storage space and have better AWD capabilities. ICE is pretty mature while EVs are still improving quickly and getting cheaper by the year; extrapolate those two trends forward and it's clear that EVs will take over. I don't know about market share over the next 2 decades, but I know that the change won't be linear. It won't be as fast as going from "nobody has smartphones" to "everybody has smartphones" because cars are longer-lived and more expensive, but to think that sales will stay as slow as they've been in the past few years is a mistake, IMO. Once really compelling models that are in mainstream price ranges hit, they'll probably be supply-constrained rather than demand-constrained for a while. Most existing car makers have only released compromised models so far because they are afraid of cannibalizing their ICE sales (ie. if Nissan had made an electric Altima rather than a LEAF... if BMW had made an electric 3 or 5 rather than the weird i3), but once things like the Model 3 are out, everyone will have to really try or eventually be left behind.

http://www.amazon.ca/More-Money-Than-God-Making/dp/0143119419 This is basically a history of the hedge fund industry, with profiles of the biggest names (Soros, Druckenmiller, Steinhart, A.W. Jones, LTCM, Julian Robertson, etc) and vignettes of some of their biggest trades and how they influenced the industry. I thought it was a lot of fun. Probably not a lot that is actionable for most investors, except maybe in understanding the mindset of HFs and why they sometimes react the way they do, but good entertainment.

I've had a chance to read this book while I was on vacation last week. It was quite enjoyable. Shows just how far Beal went to try to be competitive with the pros, and give an idea of just how smart and competitive he is. Those interested in poker trivia/history will particularly enjoy it.

"Cook shared a few details on the company’s enterprise efforts, which is now a $25 billion annual business (for the 12 months ending in June)." http://recode.net/2015/09/29/apples-tim-cook-and-boxs-aaron-levie-on-how-mobile-is-changing-business-liveblog/ This probably undercounts it a lot since there's a lot of BYOD or devices that might be bought for the enterprise without being labelled as such, and with IBM writing enterprise apps and using its salesforce to push Apple products, this could increase a bit faster. I don't think they'll necessarily displace Windows en masse, but they'll probably grab a big slice of the most profitable end of the market and approach the critical mass required for more enterprise software to be ported. IBM has been deploying a lot of Macs and iOS devices internally, and apparently the higher cost of the devices is more than made up by lower support costs and higher residual value after a few years: http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/15/ibm-mac-support/

Did you get the 5k screen? It's pretty amazing.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-york-state-approves-chartertime-warner-cable-transaction-300201578.html

For those of you who have seen the Nikkei supply-chain report-rumor today, this might help provide some context: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/05/analyst-nikkei-iphone-6s-supplier-story-says-nothing-of-iphone-demand-site-wrong-before-in-2013

Wow. Edit: http://www.wsj.com/articles/valeant-planning-to-appoint-new-leader-as-ceo-remains-hospitalized-1452036751

SIRI just released some numbers for 2015 as well as 2016 guidance (seems a bit out of the blue): http://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/SiriusXM-Exceeds-2015-Subscriber-Guidance-Issues-2016-Guidance/default.aspx

I think it's probably basic psychology. If management has good results, they'll highlight them, it's good for their egos and shows that they aren't incompetents being rescued but were doing well on their own.

Seems like that explosive growth is what causes the lower multiple. Everyone remembers the handful of cell phone companies that were dominant one year and nothing the next (Nokia, Motorola, Blackberry). Before that it was the music device companies. Apple has to keep reinventing themselves faster than most companies to stay on top. I think the important point that is often missed is that Nokia and Motorola and Blackberry and Sony are/were all companies making devices with specific functions. Sony made Walkmen to listen to music, Nokia made phones to make calls, and maybe take photos and do a few other things, RIM made phones that could do email, etc. Apple makes general purpose computing devices. There's nothing on the tech tree above general computing devices, because these can do everything with the right software/hardware. They can be a clock, a web browser, a music player, a way to watch video, a calendar, a map, a camera, a GPS, a gaming device, a productivity tool, whatever. And since you can download software, these devices are infinitely expandable (where would smartphones be without app stores?). Moore's Law means that eventually, general computing devices replace function-specific devices. But once you've got a computer in your pocket, there's not another level on top that replaces computers, just better computers... There are very few general computing device companies that control enough of the stack to be able to make a differentiated product with a premium experience. Samsung has expertise in hardware (more manufacturing than design, though), but is pretty pitiful in software and services. Google is great at services and has control of a good mobile OS, but it is a commodity used by everyone from the cheapest off-brand handset maker to the most expensive ones, and they couldn't make the hardware part work (Motorola, bought and sold). Microsoft might have the expertise to do software and services, but they never were very good at consumer user experience, mostly relying on enterprise lock-in in the past, and now they don't have a viable mobile OS and they are locked out by the network effect of iOS and Android (MSFT has basically zero percent developer mindshare on its mobile OS). Computers are taking an increasingly important place in people's lives, and Apple is a computer maker in a unique position, with unique company DNA to do well in this new environment.

The idea that Apple must be priced right because it is large and popular is funny on a forum where a large number of participant make money by buying megacaps like BAC, AIG, GOOG, MSFT, AMZN, BRK, WFC, etc. People have been predicting Apple's doom yearly for 15 years and kind of grudgingly admit that it didn't happen this time, but next year's the one. People think it's a hardware maker like Nokia and RIM were. People think it's all about revolutionary products and surprising people. *shrug*

Neil Cybart has some interesting questions and things to look for in 2016: http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/1/4/apple-questions-for-2016

Did about 20% 2015, but I'm not that happy because FX helped a lot and without it, results would be a fair bit worse. I feel like 2015 was a particularly exhausting year for most market participant. That's good. I prefer everyone to be mistrustful and worn out than happy and contented.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-warner-cable-delivers-best-165000023.html

But if the money goes to buybacks, the company is also buying back shares below IV on your behalf, so that balances out. Absolutely - in theory, but not necessarily in practice. I cannot control when the company buys back shares, so there is a distinct risk that the company does NOT buy back shares to offset my dilution. To me, since we know that companies (in aggregate at least) are not very good at accelerating buybacks during selloffs, that's a very real risk. If I have to sell steadily, and if we know that companies in aggregate prefer buying back when their stock is high, then the average price of the buyback is likely to be higher than the average price at which I sell, over a very long period of time. Clearly I can't quantify that! Absolutely. But if you are confident that the company is decent at buying back when prices are low, that can work in your favor. Or if you only own companies that are below IV, then the buybacks shouldn't be too value-destructive. As with everything in investing, it's a judgement call.

But if the money goes to buybacks, the company is also buying back shares below IV on your behalf, so that balances out.

Welcome, thanks for sharing your story! :)

You have to buy the car to test drive it? This is straight out of the Mad Men episode about the Jaguar dealer...

The company's already priced like it's going out of business, mid-single-digit FCF multiple ex-cash. This is fantastic for a company that is doing tens and tens of billions in buybacks. Apple grew EPS 44% last year. I think they'll probably land within their guidance, as they pretty much always do (well, they usually land just above it), but even if they were to be flat in 2016, who said results can't be lumpy? Most people don't upgrade every year; tons of people who bought iPhone 5 and 5S models still haven't upgraded, they are gaining more switchers from Android and existing customers are more sticky, emerging markets are growing their middle classes, 4G is still being rolled out rapidly in China and many other places, and the competition still can't do much that is differentiated in the premium end of the market. And FX can't be a headwind forever. Over time Apple will keep growing FCF/share, especially as improved versions of the Watch, Apple TV, iPad, etc, come out and the share count keeps falling rapidly... They won't grow EPS 40% every year, but they don't need to. They're priced for rapid negative growth so anything better than that is bonus. The new meme since the CBS piece is that they are building a new HQ that might cost $4-5 bn, so clearly that's a waste and shows how bad the company is allocating capital, etc. I think this shows a lack of perspective. A company spending 2-3% of its cash, or maybe 3 weeks of FCF on a new HQ that might help it attract and retain scarce talent (which is the bottleneck for the company, and they face tough competition on that front from Google and Facebook and a zillion other techn companies with nice HQs), replacing dozens of random buildings spread across the city and helping reinforce the brand of a company that has one of the strongest brands in the world isn't bad. It's similar to their flagship stores in expensive locations with fancy architecture -- that would be a waste for an industrial company, but this stuff matters to a consumer business. Pretty sure a lot of other companies spend a lot more than 2-3% of their cash or 3 weeks of FCF on boring old HQs that add less value...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3379214/MARKET-REPORT-Vodafone-said-planning-possible-140bn-merger-listed-cable-company-Liberty-Global-early-2016.html More merger talks...

Thanks!

Not sure if this one had been posted before. A WIRED interview with Malone from 1994 when he was still at TCI: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive//2.07/malone_pr.html Via Value Seeker on Twitter (@Find_Me_Value)