that's an interesting assertion. is there any reason you have that opinion, or are you just another fox viewer bursting with pride in your own ignorance?
that's the nice thing about "economic value", isn't it? it doesn't even have a precise definition, let alone any way of calculating it exactly. so you can just pull any number out of your posterior and declare it an "economic, not merely accounting" value.
what winston churchill said about democracy, works pretty well as a description of GAAP, too.
it isn't like that at all. death and disease are both growth industries. it's a lot more like investing in a freshly salted slug.
hope that helps.
"a sea of morons (women) who hate him because his wife loves him. Women should NOT vote. "
you sound bitter, dude. if you got out of the basement occasionally, you might get a chance to actually interact with a female person. it could change your whole outlook.
yeah? so, you got your money where your mouth is, or are you just grandstanding?
yeah, back when the democratic party was full of conservatives they were a bunch of real #$%$. are you sure that's the point you want to push?
trailing indicator, dude. you can flip a coin and be right half the time or follow dumb money around and be right 49%.
thanks for thinking. i'm not saying this to put you on the spot for the halfwits like OP to jeer at, but why not give it the whole nine yards and declare a fair value, either for the enterprise or the common?
it's all just confirmation bias. most security transactions are funds selling to other funds; that's just where the money comes from. so if you like the stock, you can feel good a fund is buying, and if you hate a stock you can feel bad a fund is selling. meaningless
technicals are also confirmation bias. they don't work, and you know they don't work because if they did, goldman sachs would have a machine trading stocks on your technical which would work so fast you wouldn't get a chance. even if they worked, they wouldn't work, which is 100% in line with the historical evidence.
you buy it if you like the prospects for paying a nice dividend in the future, and not otherwise. don't try to outguess morons, last thing you want is to practice thinking like a moron.
god it would be such a shame to lose you on this board. i sure hope you once again completely fail to heed the your own advice. go hide under the bed, it should be safe to invest again in about thirty years, k?
you're asking an obsessive narcissist whether being praised or ridiculed by strangers is important? COME ON, what kind of answer did you expect?
HC. i don't claim to know buffett's mind, but the logical, natural answer to your question is: "increasing returns to scale". brk isn't a conglomerate, it's a reinsurance company. almost from conception, brk has been consistently playing like it's game-plan is to corner the reinsurance industry. it's an astounding display of hubris, if i'm correct, but buffett has the ego to try it and (evidently) the game to pull it off.
oh by all means, explain where "butler" came from. there's nothing more entertaining than when a genuinely stupid person speaks his mind.
well just for starters, the idea of "diluting" fiat currency is kind of ridiculous. ok, the intrinsic value is zero, oh no it's down to half of zero. in terms of erosion of buying power, we've once again done substantially better under obama than we do on average. you can hold plenty of things against the guy, but if you haven't made a ton of money since he came into office, you're incompetent.
there's plenty of hope going long. what is hopeless is trading. people in vegetative states outperform traders, you can hate it all you want but it's well-established empirical fact.
park your money in some assortment of low cost funds- or stocks that will absolutely not faze you if the price drops- and get a damn job. society will be better off and so will your family.
wow if you time the market perfectly and go from all cash to all in right at the bottom, you do really well! who knew, right?