Liberty

It seemed to have pretty decent growth potential to me, especially internationally. This presentation gives an overview of some of the recent numbers, and while it's not hyper-growth, it doesn't look too mature to me: http://investors.livenationentertainment.com/files/doc_events/2013/LYV_Liberty%20Media%20Investor%20Day%202013.pdf

Review of the book: http://www.barelkarsan.com/2014/04/who-says-elephants-cant-dance.html

http://ir.platformspecialtyproducts.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=840756 Platform Specialty Products Corporation Announces Agreement to Acquire Agrochemicals Business From Chemtura for Approximately $1 Billion Presentation here: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-2DC2F1/3099352763x0x744657/1880886b-226c-4610-adb0-0980d4401942/FINAL%20Platform%20Investor%202014-04.pdf

I wanted to ask Gio for his thesis on JAH, and figured I might as well create a thread for the company. It's one that has been on my list of companies to check out for a while, but I haven't gotten a chance to get to it yet. This brought it back to my attention. There's a writeup on the VIC about it: http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/108870 The company is related to PAH: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/pah-platform-specialty-products/ http://brooklyninvestor.blogspot.ca/2013/11/platform-specialty-products.html

A few thoughts: I would be very surprised if Sirius wasn't one of the first apps offered on CarPlay. Apple is making most of their money there by making their iPhones more useful and sticky, not through iTunes Radio in the car or whatever. This means that they have no real reason to keep Sirius out of it (there's a Sirius app for iOS too). In fact, they probably want it there because it makes CarPlay better for the user, which makes iPhones more useful too by association. Sirius will also likely add some IP functionality to its offerings over time to add more on-demand content (like podcasts, or replays, or custom playlists, etc). I think that they can keep doing well as long as they combine quality exclusive content + convenience + no ads and other annoyances + relatively low cost in the grand scheme of things (equivalent to a couple Starbucks coffees a month). They've even said that outside of the US, car OEMs are asking them to come, and they said that at first they'll probably expand oversees over the IP/cellular network, so they definitely are working on that capability (plus they already stream over the net and have smartphone apps). Sure people who are counting their pennies will probably use their cellphones, but these people are probably already listening to downloaded content or free terrestrial radio. Sirius is going after the mainstream who is annoyed by ads and wants sports, talk radio, varied music at their fingertips without having to download stuff and curate playlists, etc. They're basically selling content + convenience (no worries about phone batteries, launching an app, being in a bad reception area, etc. just push a button on the center console and go). The challenge of their main competition like Pandora is that they are a lot less profitable than SIRI, so they have a lot less cash to invest in exclusive content (it's a vicious/virtuous cycle, depending on which side you're on). It's a bit like how HBO bootstrapped itself over time; more quality content = more money, which they reinvest into more quality content, which increased how much they made, and so on. It's easier to get Howard Stern and other stars, and MBL and live shows and such for SIRI than any internet radio. And all the free stuff like podcasts, SIRI has access to that too if they really want it (why would podcasters ever say no to being distributed via SIRI? they'd love it). They could build it into their smartphone app and you get it to play over your car stereo or whatever. There's definitely increased competition, but I think SIRI's well positioned to be quite competitive. Update: This presentation has a few slides that compare SIRI with pandora, spotify, clear channel, and other media businesses: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SIRI/3099318286x0x696048/083d30de-f8d2-4baa-a6a7-a4a069c0956e/SiriusXM%20Liberty10.10.13FINALPDF.pdf

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this summary, Sanjeev. I wish I had been able to make it this year, and this at least gives me a glimpse of what happened. Glad you all had such a great time!

Thanks!

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to the forum!

I bought a few more too, but I already had a full position for a while. I'm also very excited by the word "exclusive" in that last release.

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-releases/corporate-and-financial-news/bank-america-reports-first-quarter-2014-net-loss-276-mil

I listened to many of these and they were all excellent. Great resource. Make sure to find the extended episode about Henry Singleton. But I didn't know Geoff had done one, I'll listen for sure, thank you for mentioning it!

Just for reference, from the latest Q:

I believe they lost a big chunk of revenue recently because of Zovirax, but that's not something that will happen again any time soon (you can look at their patents ending for the next few years). They've also gotten out or reduced presence for less profitable areas/drugs, especially in developed markets where growth is slow, competition intense, and more reimbursements go through governments. Getting out of less profitable businesses and markets is a good thing, IMO, even if it reduces revenue. The way I look at it, organic growth is not good in itself. It depends how much you need to spend to grow. If you need to invest $100 to get $2 of growth, I'd rather keep the money than invest it in that growth. Valeant has been saying that most R&D and marketing expenses in the pharma world have been getting terrible returns, which is why they're investing elsewhere. So if others have been growing faster but they are getting bad returns on the money invested to get that growth, I'd rather see valeant invest in other things where returns are better (ie. acquiring existing products, a 'sure thing' compared to R&D). All that matters in the end is how much value is created per dollar invested. I believe that in their 2012 Q3 presentation they had 3 slides tracking past acquisitions. They have an IRR target of 20% minimum (for which they don't count any R&D pipeline products, and they have been conservative with synergies so far), with full cash payback of 5-6 years. All but 2-3 out of a dozen acquisitions that were big enough to be material (above 75m, iirc) were above target so far, with most over 10% above target. I think they recently mentioned that they'll give an updated version of that soon (they track it internally, of course), so that'll certainly be interesting to see. Of course, it'll take a few more quarters for B&L to be fully integrated (they said 2014 would be back-loaded, about 40/60).

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/blackberry-buys-stake-in-u-s-based-nanthealth-1.1776792

Heh. I think you'll find that Kraven was, as they call it, "taking the mickey" out of potential responses. Best, Ragu Of course. It's usually safe to assume that most of what Kraven says in a thread not directly about investing is irony, so I was ironic in return. Guess it doesn't translate well without smileys... :)

He certainly wouldn't want that. He's smart enough to do the twisting himself.

First thing that comes to mind is that low-end is more commoditized, so Amazon and other online stores are a big factor, while higher-end tends to be more differentiated.

I just read When Irish Eyes are Crying by Michael Lewis about the RE bubble in Ireland, and many things were definitely familiar. I don't think Canada's bubble is on that scale, but many of the attitudes are recognizable. Good read for those who still haven't read it (it was published in 2011): http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103.print Here's some highlights I kept (the part about Lehman's global testicles is just funny):

Thanks. I've never seen it, and actually just ordered the book (found a used copy for 1 cent on Amazon), so your timing is perfect.

Who's most curmudgeonly? ;)

Liberty, I get your point! And it is funny. ;D ;D The truth, though, is simply I see those methods as tools, nothing else. Would you prefer to have them at your disposal or to have them not? Then, when they are at your disposal, it is up to you to decide how to use them. And you must know your own situation and its needs to make the best decisions possible. ;) Gio Absolutely. I do the same thing as you, and I certainly don't consider myself on the level of any of the people I try to draw inspiration from.

Gio is... a formidable opponent! http://www.leftjabradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Colbert.jpg ;) I'm just kidding, Gio. I know what you mean. You must learn from all the greats, but you have to see if things apply to your situation and if you think you are up to doing what they recommend doing (which might not always be easy, depending on the specific advice). Can't blindly follow advice, etc. I just thought the superposition of "I just follow what the greats did/You can't just follow what the greats did out of context if you're not of their level!" was funny :)

I couldn't tell you exactly which ones. I did this before I even registered for the forum, so it was in 2010... and at first I didn't know the posters, so everybody kind of ran together for a while until patterns and personalities emerged. But from what I was interested in back then, I can kind of reconstruct things a bit; I came here after reading everything I could about Buffett and Berkshire, and I had heard about Fairfax because they were compared to Berkshire a lot (probably how I found the forum, Googling around). So I remember I was quite interested in all the baby-berkshires back then and read very closely everything I could find about Berkshire-Fairfax-Markel-Leucadia-Loews (I never warmed to Loews). Berkshire/Buffett had also taught me a few things about insurance, so I was looking for good insurers (WRB, RLI, etc) and to learn more about insurance, and there are many threads about that buried around... But apart from that, it's just kind of cumulative. You soak it all up. Best is when a thread title doesn't seem interesting, but there's a 10-page tangent about something really cool buried in there. It's like a treasure hunt. Other times, you can just quickly skim...

I definitely second that. I'm just here to learn, as I'm nowhere near the level of many investors on this forum, and reading through the archives was an incredibly fruitful period of learning when I found this place a few years ago. In fact, I'm starting to think that I should do that again at some point (I think I've learned a lot since then, so I might get more out of certain things that were over my head back then, or that I had less context for). I've also started to be more diligent about keeping an investment journal, and, among other things, I use it to collect good stuff I find (here, in 10Ks, interviews, blog posts, etc). Re-reading through that journal once in a while should also provide good insight and reinforcement.