Liberty

Please elaborate.

Here's what one of FTP's DP experts had to say (via Chris Holland, who did a great job getting this info to me in less than a day): I like that he only thinks it would be "somewhat" lower than the 44k/mt. Even if it's just half (22k/mt), that would make a big difference in cost per ton since the higher volume would be spread over similar fixed costs. And that doesn't even include the biorefinering's added value. Of course, going into biorefining probably isn't simple and must take a while, so this isn't a short-term catalyst. But it's good to know that there's this long runway ahead and that there are known ways to squeeze more cashflow out of these assets.

Looks like the maps probably weren't fully baked.. http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19659736

These labels are meaningless to me. I'm whatever I am -- in practice, lefties think I'm a righty and righties think I'm a lefty. Whatever, keep 'em confused :)

Ha! I doubt I need a book. What needs to be done is very simple and could fit in one sentence. It's the execution I have trouble with. ;)

We should form a support group for the cashless... 12 steps to build up a cash cushion and all that ;)

This just blew my mind. I had never thought of it this way, and I don't remember hearing the company ever mention it quite like that (yes, biorefinering would get more value out of the feedstock, but I didn't know it could also increase DP production). This would improve the overall economics of the project significantly. Anyone can confirm that this is actually how things would happen? I'm not sure I quite understand how lignin and hemi-cellulose could bottleneck DP production... Can anyone shed some light on how exactly this process works? In any case, very interesting stuff. Update: I've been in touch with FTP and they asked one of their DP experts for his views on this. Am just waiting for the email.. They seemed to be saying that we shouldn't expect something quite as dramatic as CIBC is saying, but there might be some mileage there anyway. I'll update you guys when I have the email.

Sorry I was ambiguous, I didn't mean so much the money as the whole "oh, we'll dilute your royalty, sorry guys" scenario. Maybe it turned out for the best in the end, I don't know.

They were real rivals who played dirty with him and did their best to keep him from the job; lots of people wouldn't have taken them onboard regardless of their talents. And there are also republicans like Gates, LaHood, etc.. who probably didn't even vote for him. My point remains that I haven't seen anything that makes me believe he isn't ready to compromise to work with the other side, but if the other side won't compromise, he can't just say "all right, you win, we'll do it exactly your way", hence the stalemate. But that's just my impression. I don't care that much about politics; it's mostly a waste of time since there's nothing I can do about it.

We'll see out much it turns out to be worth over the years - I don't think they looked at it short-term - but just the idea of being apparently screwed by a partner is never fun. Not saying they didn't get good value for it, I don't know exactly since I didn't analyze it and it'll depend a lot on unknown future events.

They must be pissed >:( :-\

Hasn't Obama named most of his biggest rivals to important functions in his administration, as well as many republicans? I think he would work well with all kinds if given the chance. But for 'working with others' to work, the others also have to want to work with you at least a little. I don't think the US has got that in the current congress, mostly because republicans are all afraid to give one inch for fear of being taken out by the tea party. Not that congress democrats are super cooperative either, but if we're talking about just Obama, I never got the impression that he wouldn't compromise to get things done (but it's not a game you can play by yourself).

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/apple-iphone-5-review/

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/09/18/buffett-and-gatess-giving-pledge-ranks-expand-with-11-new-families/ Good news!

And I bet he's better than most analysts out there :P

I don't think there's much debate to be had that both approaches can work (though it would be nice to see if the very diversified people got most of their returns from their bigger positions -- ie. I think someone like Peter Lynch had tons and tons of stocks, but some were basically just tracking positions while others represented a large fraction of his portfolio -- thats a different approach than having 100 stocks that are weighted at 1% each). The real question should be: Which approach has the most chances of improving your results? I think it depends on your temperament and your skill as an investor/how well you do your homework (which isn't the same -- if you're really good but you spend 2 hours a week on investing... well). I would guess that overall, there are probably more good investors who are hurt by diversification than vice versa, and that there are more poor investors who are hurt by concentration than vice versa.

Liberty, I like your posts and respect your opinion very much. So, I would really appreciate, if you could elaborate a little further on the reasons why you dislike Loews Corp. I have written about my view on L, and I would also add that I consider an investment in L below book value a good way to have an interest in the Oil&Gas industry, through Diamond, Boardwalk, and HighMount (which are good companies). But, if you have time and patience, I would love to know the view of someone, who clearly is a very thoughtful and accomplished investor, and who happens to disagree with me. Thank you very much! giofranchi Hey, sorry for not replying to this sooner, I don't really follow this thread closely. First, I must say that I think you're confusing me with someone else; I certainly can't claim to be an accomplished investor, though I hope to be someday, and I do try my best to be thoughtful :) Anyway, about Loews: I haven't really thought about it much in at least a year, but it kept popping up on my list because people usually include it when they are talking about 'mini-Berkshires', along with Fairfax, Markel, Leucadia, etc. I don't have big reasons to dislike L, but I also don't have many reasons to like it, which is why I don't care too much about it. I'm not convinced that current management is of the caliber of Larry Tisch, I'm not super excited about their assets, and I'm not sure if their conglomerate discount will go away any time soon, so buying under book might not help that much, at least in the foreseeable future. And that BRK-like model, with lots of assets and lots of capital allocation decisions in various industries, is mostly a bet on management, so I would have to really like them to consider it. Right now, if I had to choose, I would prefer Berkshire, Fairfax, Leucadia, and Markel to them (roughly in that order, but always depending on price)... So in short: I don't see too much that is really wrong with them, but not enough that is right either to want to dig deeper. But as I said, don't take my word for it, I haven't even thought about L much in the past year+.

We have a thread about the Halo Effect here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/books/the-halo-effect-phil-rosenzweig/ I'm sure the Collins book is well-written and well argued, it's just that foundational premise of it is deeply flawed, as explained in the halo effect, so pretty much everything built on top of it is highly suspect.

Yeah, I'm particularly interested in 3D printing as a way to make the extracellular matrix for replacement organs that can then be seeded with your own stem cells. Then you've got an organ perfectly matched to you, no chances of it being rejected, like new!

Thanks Triedtestedand! One thing I'd like to know is how much further they think they can push Dresden. Seems like every year they are increasing capacity and utilization... Are they about to hit a hard ceiling that would require lots of capex to bust through, or are they just getting started? Either way, I'll admit that a sale for 200M+ would certainly give a whole different feel to the balance sheet and help grease the way for more acquisitions, if that's still what they want to do. The whole company is selling in the secondary market for 203M right now, so it would certainly be interesting to see the market's reaction to that :) If the acquisitions they want to do can't/won't happen (they most certainly don't have tons of targets remaining by now - I'd guess at most half a dozen, with maybe half that really fitting all the criteria they want), they could easily do big buybacks with that dough. About Landquart, I still have to defer to their judgement. They seem unemotional enough about assets and good enough capital allocators that if they thought the best thing to do with it right now was to close it or sell it in a fire sale, they'd do it. So I have to assume that they think they can either turn it around enough to make it pay for itself, or enough to get a better price in a sale later. I know it's not the most satisfying answer, but that's all I have right now, and if I didn't trust them that far, I wouldn't have invested in the first place. But who knows how it'll turn out...

Thanks for posting, that was a good profile and interesting glance at the life of a U.S. president. One thing I didn't really like is how Lewis kinda of implied (or maybe I just misread something) that the navigator was closer to Obama than he actually was. I mean, it's cool that this guy's story was told, but I felt a bit manipulated at the end.

[amazonsearch]Bre-X: Gold Today, Gone Tomorrow[/amazonsearch] Started this one. Wanted to know more about this historic scandal.

Finished it, and on the whole, it was better than I expected. More for entrepreneurs than investors, but a lot still applies, or at least is interesting to read about if you like that sort of thing.

Congrats NormR, that's great!

Currently, 50% of capital gains are taxed at your marginal rate, yes.