Liberty

http://i.imgur.com/FhKaE.jpg ;)

Value investing, to me, means getting more value than you are giving. That's very simple. How to do that well, though, is rather more complex. There are many ways to do it, and there are many challenges in executing strategies well.

HP's definitely cheap, but I don't have enough confidence in the integrity, strategic vision, and capital allocation skills of current management to even consider investing, even if it was half the current price. But that's just my own checklist... Doesn't mean it won't make a lot of money to people buying at these levels.

Thanks. I wrote them a while ago but never heard back.

It seems like I've been waiting for the ALS 2011 Annual report forever.. http://www.altiusminerals.com/annual.php Anyone has any idea when it is supposed to come out?

Sorry, but I'm still not sure what you are referring to here. Is it stuff like VMWare and Parallels or something else?

I think you are partly right, and in good part this is because Apple isn't that interested in the enterprise. It has success there despite its semi-indifference (even Steve Jobs said it himself). They throw a few bones to enterprise users, but they don't really design their products with the enterprise in mind (except maybe some Xserve servers and such..). Apple will have success in the enterprise with smartphones and probably tablets for reasons I elaborated earlier in this thread (or was it the GOOG or MSFT thread? anyway, I don't want to repeat myself, but in short: people don't want to carry two phones around, they want the best and most desirable one, they don't want to be stuck with a sub-par 'work phone' because phones are by nature a consumer product as well as a business tool), but I doubt they'll have much success in the Fortune 500 enterprise with desktop computers and laptop for the reasons you mentioned (price). But maybe their approach to the enterprise will change post-Jobs (who never cared much about that stuff), and in any case, I believe that the way the current market is set up, Microsoft has everything to lose because when you have a near-monopoly, any disruption in the status quo can only either keep you were you are or bring you down...

Please elaborate, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

I agree with txlaw's second point. Over time, the OS will become a lot less important because almost everything important will by done in a browser. This is bad for MSFT, and this means that UI and design (and 'design' doesn't just mean "how it looks", it goes farther than that -- how something is designed is also how it works and how it feels to use) will become more important as differentiators because there will be less lock-in with OSes ('well, I don't have a choice, I need to run this software and it only runs on windows'). Before switching to Macs a few years ago, I was so afraid of not being able to do some things, and I thought I'd just keep a second windows PC as a fall back for those things. I never had to use that PC, and now it's gathering dust in some closet somewhere... Reminds me of a XKCD cartoon: http://xkcd.com/934/

Emulation will always require more RAM and processor cycles than running something natively, which is more problematic on mobile devices that are limited in both these things (plus battery life) than desktops or servers. Not necessarily horrible, but definitely sub-optimal.

I'm now about 3/4th through, and I'm curious to know if the book had the same impact on others who have ready it: Did it make you want to punch Paul Samuelson in the face? He comes across as so arrogant and borders on intellectual dishonesty...

The short answer is: The same thing that makes any piece of software more or less secure. Was it designed with security in mind, or is it old legacy spaghetti code that has been patched over time? How fast vulnerability are patched (and automatic patches are more secured than counting on all your users to do it themselves).. Are third-part plug-ins sequestered? Is each tab sandboxed? Is the code open-source or closed (often having more eyes on the code can help find problems)? Does the software maker pay external consultants (former black hat hackers, etc) and sponsor prizes/reward bug submissions to test its defenses? Etc. That kind of stuff. Don't ask me for the long answer, please..

They've existed for a long time, and made a bit more headlines recently so people are getting more excited, but if you use common sense (don't run software if you don't know where it's from, backup your data in at least 2 places, etc), have a secure browser (like Chrome), and install patches, you're chances of getting a Mac virus are so low that the assured inconveniences that come from an anti-virus are MASSIVELY bigger than any inconvenience you could get from a virus. Not worth it (maybe some day it will, but the UNIX foundations of OS X make it pretty secure by default).

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm running a Mac, so that takes care of that :)

I'm now halfway through the book and it's much explicitly about the stock market. Buffett even makes a cameo! I'm enjoying it a lot so far, so thanks again!

Is that theme adjustable? If possible, I'd bump up the font size a little bit for the list of threads, it's quite small now.

Add to that a pristine reputation built over decades that is well known and respected by everybody.

Funny because I was thinking if it's possible to stop people using handle such as Buffet or Munger ot Graham if they are poles apart in thinking. Handle might create an association bias and people might take time to respond which they would have ignored in general. But I guess it's an online forum and people can chose any handle they want. Are you 12? This is standard cognitive science. Names mean something, and our brains can't help but make associations. Or maybe I should just change my handle to 'Warren Buffett'..

I think you are missing my point. Buffett brings something else than money to the table, and BAC thought that it was worth paying for. Should Buffett have paid more just to satisfy you, and if he had, would you be applauding this deal or finding other reasons why it doesn't mean much? Why do businesses sell to BRK for prices lower than what they could get in an auction? Because BRK brings something else of value to the table (different from what it brought to BAC, but there's a parallel there -- sometimes there are intangibles that change the value equation, and if you don't see them, your model to value businesses will have blind spots).

How is this a bad thing? The reason why Buffett can get better conditions is because he's worked all these years to develop a reputation as a good judge of businesses and a man of the utmost integrity. That has value, and people are ready to pay for that value (otherwise they'd be getting value for nothing), so what's wrong with it? I don't get why you seem to upset. Buffett probably said "these are my conditions" and BAC agreed because they thought it was a good deal. No arms were twisted.

The fact is, Buffett's reputation is worth a lot, especially to financial companies where trust matters. Buffett's reputation wouldn't be worth what it is worth if he invested in bad companies, so they both win. It's not because BAC is paying for something intangible that they're not getting something for their money. In fact, I would be surprised if the premium they are paying won't end up being worth it to them...

Berkshire's in it for the long-term. They haven't done well with the common of those yet. It'll take a bit longer than this to determine how good that deal was for BRK.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/24/steve-jobss-best-quotes/

Bill Berkley seems to also think that, and I tend to defer to his expertise on that kind of stuff.