Liberty

http://glennchan.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/altisource-recap/

This makes no sense. Things can exist even if they are evolutionary adaptations. Anchoring bias is a heuristic programmed into us by evolution because it's quick and works in most situations we would encounter in the simpler society where our bodies evolved over tens of thousands of years. Is anchoring bias not real? Thinking is just an electro-chemical phenomenon that takes place in the brain, something that we can clearly observe with all kinds of equipment, and we can see how it changes or stops if we damage various parts of the brain. Yet thinking is still real. It doesn't need to be magical and supernatural to exist. Ethics are real, even if they only come from human thinking; just like love is real, even if all love would disappear if all sentient thinking disappeared too. Thousands of years ago, less sophisticated civilizations with no good methodology (science) to figure out how things work attributed everything to the supernatural, but we've moved passed that now; I just wish more people would realize it. There's a quote I like about all this: "Yes, you could say that it is all just a game evolution has programmed us to play, but it's an important game for those so programmed."

ISS makes its recommendations: http://ir.valeant.com/investor-relations/news-releases/news-release-details/2014/Institutional-Shareholder-Services-ISS-Recommends-Allergan-Shareholders-Call-A-Special-Meeting-Of-Shareholders/default.aspx Some strong stuff in there:

Very hard to predict, but the overall trends are quite good IMO. Capital intensity is going down, they're shifting more customers to all digital where ARPUs are higher, and their Horizon platform with even higher ARPUs is growing nicely and has lower churn. Their new investments into content - though still small right now - could be nicely profitable down the line (kind of like how TCI's content investments grew tremendously in value over time and had side benefits on the strategic level). The MVNO projects could also turn into something very valuable, especially if the quad play further reduces churn. So I'm not answering your questions, but overall I quite like what I see. For a business this well management with cash flows this predictable, I don't think it's expensive. And we're close to where Ted Weschler bought it (or was it Todd).

I agree that top notch capital allocation isn't as important in every company, but it's never a bad thing to have. Even a company as focused on products and organic growth as Apple became a better investment for shareholders when they stopped just sitting on their growing cash pile and started doing buybacks, dividends, raising some debt, etc. And I wasn't saying that it's a mistake for most companies to pick internal candidates that might not have capital allocation experience. Life is all about tradeoffs and doing the best with what you have. Especially in tough businesses, having good operations is crucial above all else. But it's still a shame that most companies are not structurally built to foster that kind of talent explicitly (there's a few companies that I like that train their managers to use all kinds of ROIC, cashflow, and capital intensity metrics and tie their compensation to those, and over time that makes them think in very clear real-economic terms that I think does help with company-wide capital allocation).

Good points. One should be honest and know thy self. After 7-8 years ( two business cycles) one knows there strengths and weakness's in business/investing. There is no shame for ceo's to outsource there investing to someone that is talented. I think most ceo's think they are better than the results show. So its a ego and pride thing. Rarely, is the Ceo a great capital allocator and operator. These guys are the superstars. In a ideal world every ceo throws there ego to the side and hires./partners up with a talented operator or allocator. Creating a win/win for shareholders. I think there's a whole other discussion in there; where are you supposed to find great capital allocators? There's a path within most businesses for great salespeople to climb the ladder and eventually reach the C suite. There's a path for all kinds of people, but there's not really a specific capital allocation career path in the lower ranks that feeds you the best capital allocators to the top. You almost have to be lucky and get a salesperson, or an engineer, or a bean counter who rises up the chain of command and who also happens to be great at capital allocation. A lot of great capital allocators go into investing, and there's a path from there for them to take over a business and make it their vehicle, but even that is relatively rare and doesn't always work if they don't have the operating talent (or can't find it in others) to make that work.

Indeed. I think that many of the best CEOs out there have probably studied Buffett and other great capital allocators, at least a little, and some will still go against these teachings because they have compensation incentives that make it better for them to do so. But when it comes to the average CEO, I have little faith in them having thought much about what their capital allocation framework is. They probably do things the way they've always been done at the firm, or copy what their competitors do, or follow the various fashions from the management consulting industry... Independent thinking is too rare a thing.

Most? What makes you say that? I don't think most Buffett fans have read all the berkshire letters...

Good answers above. I'd add: A lot of it is short-term thinking vs long-term thinking. Also, capital allocation is basically investing, and as we know, that's simple but not easy. Most CEOs might be good salespeople or good operating people, but they are poor investors.

Joint venture between Tesla and SpaceX: Rocket-powered cars.

Q2 is out: http://www.libertyglobal.com/pdf/press-release/LG-Earnings-Release-Q2-14-FINAL.pdf

I haven't had a chance to listen to the call yet, but this excerpt was interesting: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/malone-talks-fox-time-warner-723092

If you eat badly and don't exercise, you potentially rob your wife of precious years of your life. We need to implement a paternalistic totalitarian fascist state to make you eat your veggies, take the stairs, and brush your teeth...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/allergan-ackan-idINL2N0QB00G20140805 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-05/allergan-being-obstructive-in-deal-defense-firm-says.html

The way things are going, it will be a movie too (or maybe a side plot in the Herbalife movie?).

http://www.transdigm.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196053&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1955222&highlight=

Allergan still on the attack: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140805005616/en/Allergan-Comments-Valeant%E2%80%99s-Quarter-2014-Earnings-Results#.U-DU5oB4bKg

http://glennchan.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/ocwenaltisource-force-placed-insurance/

The Gates Foundation would probably gladly pay for them.

Models are useful, but limited. Volatility isn't just for stocks. I still think the iPad got ahead of itself when Apple mania was at its peak and they basically had the whole tablet market to themselves. The only reason why things look relatively disappointing now is because of the insane comps from the most successful product launch of all time in the previous couple years (going from zero to bigger than the Mac in no time). Time will tell. Do you think iPad sales will be flat or lower 3 years from now?

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=76115&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1954815&highlight= Combined ration 98.8 on the P&C side.

Nothing goes up in a straight line. A short term slowdown is hardly a glass ceiling. The article explains that everybody else is basically giving away their tablets (sometimes literally for free); you don't think that should have an impact? The competitive dynamic has changed and the iPad will be on a different path than it was when the competition was scrambling to come out with crappy tablets that were more expensive than the iPad (first couple years). But I'd be extremely surprised if Apple wasn't selling a lot more iPads in a few years and wasn't still taking most of the profits of the entire industry (while reinforcing the rest of it's integrated ecosystem and selling more other products and services to people who bought an iPad)...

I love your enthusiasm, but just to avoid any confusion, I'm not the author. I'm just sharing the piece because I enjoyed it :)

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/08/04/editorial-why-apple-inc-isnt-worried-about-ipads-idc-tablet-market-share-

I find your dogmatically anti-dogmatic phrasing ironic and amusing (and also am saddened a bit by it). This isn't computer code. You know what I meant, no need to be pedantic.