Yes, it was really fun.
On a related note, I came across a website several years ago that has a lot of info from the annual meeting Q&As, as well as other interviews, etc. It's quite long, but I found it very enjoyable to read.
3,884 karma · joined July 22, 2009
On a related note, I came across a website several years ago that has a lot of info from the annual meeting Q&As, as well as other interviews, etc. It's quite long, but I found it very enjoyable to read.
If anyone wants to bet against them existing, I'll take the bet.
For all the Rolex fans here: why Rolex over say Breitling or Waldan (I like the look of the Waldans the best)?
Because I'd be willing to make a bet (say 1k) for Uber, depending on the terms.
I'd also make a bet for Lyft, depending on the terms.
Edit: I posted the wrong URL. Here's the right one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ANHNU0Fng
Do you have a source for this conversation? I'd like to read more about Peter's thoughts if they're available.
I hadn't heard that before, but am interested in learning more about it.
http://avc.com/2014/05/the-valuation-trap/#comment-136902035...
"Here's a model that we've had trouble with. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well.
Over the years, we've tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sort of rational from the investor's point of view so that the shareholders do well, and in other markets, there's destructive competition that destroys shareholder wealth.
If it's a pure commodity like airline seats, you can understand why no one makes any money. As we sit here, just think of what airlines have given to the world—safe travel, greater experience, time with your loved ones, you name it. Yet, the net amount of money that's been made by the shareholders of airlines since Kitty Hawk, is now a negative figure—a substantial negative figure. Competition was so intense that, once it was unleashed by deregulation, it ravaged shareholder wealth in the airline business.
Yet, in other fields—like cereals, for example—almost all the big boys make out. If you're some kind of a medium grade cereal maker, you might make 15% on your capital. And if you're really good, you might make 40%. But why are cereals so profitable—despite the fact that it looks to me like they're competing like crazy with promotions, coupons and everything else? I don't fully understand it.
Obviously, there's a brand identity factor in cereals that doesn't exist in airlines. That must be the main factor that accounts for it.
And maybe the cereal makers by and large have learned to be less crazy about fighting for market share—because if you get even one person who's hell-bent on gaining market share.... For example, if I were Kellogg and I decided that I had to have 60% of the market, I think I could take most of the profit out of cereals. I'd ruin Kellogg in the process. But I think I could do it.
In some businesses, the participants behave like a demented Kellogg. In other businesses, they don't. Unfortunately, I do not have a perfect model for predicting how that's going to happen.
For example, if you look around at bottler markets, you'll find many markets where bottlers of Pepsi and Coke both make a lot of money and many others where they destroy most of the profitability of the two franchises. That must get down to the peculiarities of individual adjustment to market capitalism. I think you'd have to know the people involved to fully understand what was happening."
-Charlie Munger http://ycombinator.com/munger.html
1. From The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham: "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Invest...
2. From Mr. Buffett on the Stock Market: "The definition is simple but often forgotten: investing is laying out money now to get more money back in the future -- more money in real terms, after taking inflation into account."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/...
One of its inaccuracies:
>Young founders in their early 20s take on the online payments sector with nothing more than a YC pedigree to their name.
Patrick actually co-founded Auctomatic in the beginning of 2007. It sold about a year later for $5 million.
http://www.crunchbase.com/company/auctomatic
http://techcrunch.com/2008/03/26/communicate-acquires-y-comb...
Patrick and John are two of the most remarkable people I've ever met.
I'd also include a personal write-up as to why I enjoyed each, without giving away any important details.
We can either use public company stats, or a couple of respected publications' reported usage stats, or a combination of both to decide the winner.
http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2006/10/google-to-acquire-yo...
If you know of a small group of people (ideally in the financial/money industry) who'd be interested in this, get them to use it amongst each other to trade stories during the day.
I still believe there's a market for this. It just needs to start in the hands of small group of people who'll constantly use it throughout the day to communicate with each other about business-related stories.
If you get people to consistently submit good stories, readers will follow, and then some time after, albeit slowly, commenters.
http://allthingsd.com/20131114/finally-a-new-way-to-pay-in-s...