All P.I.G.S. fed and ready to fly

Of more relevance, find some lists dating back to the late 1970's early 1980's when Berkshire was much smaller.

The underlying nature of Buffetts investing principles havent changed over time. Only the transactional action has. As Berkshire has grown larger, it needs to find 'bigger' transactions to make any difference to its performance.
But when you look at the total picture Buffett has a vast number to keep happy ,where as a simple stand alone day -week-monthly trader only has one person to keep happy,himself..willair..
 
Its got to the size it has through being a successful INVESTOR.

An urban myth. It would take hundreds of years for him to have amassed his fortune using the published "Graham" methodology. Graham never became the wealthiest man in the country, did he? He is clearly a great operator and I respect that but I am truly tired of being compared to him and being found wanting. My role models are all wealthy men but they are different to Buffett and each is different from the others.

I wish you would cease and desist with this Buffett thing because I have no wish to spend my waking hours reading balance sheets and annual reports.


People also forget that Birkshire wasnt always the size it was.
Berkshire was once a small laundry or such which Buffett took over and ran in his own way, so he was taking positions of power a long time ago.

Sunfish keeps suggesting that i 'sneer' at traders.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
When have you ever spoken fondly of "traders"? As you use the word it sounds like a curse.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES that apply.
Who's rules? The main rule I go by is: "There are no rules!"
 
crash_r.jpg
 
IV,

Bill says that being an 'investor' can only happen if there is control over the assets and then refers to Buffett. This is complete hogwash.

Perhaps you could quote me accurately??

an investor has influence on what his money is doing.

If you don't think that Buffett has a large influence over the companies that he is a shareholder of, but doesn't control, then you are dreaming. In the '50's when Buffett was early in his career, using money from others that bought into his fund, there was a period when his largest 'value' investment started to go against him. His 'investors' were getting nervous. Buffett went around to lots of the existing shareholders in the company to call a special general meeting to unlock some of the value in the company. If he had failed to get others to agree with him at the time, his fledgling fund would have collapsed, and his name would probably not be known today as it is.

Since then he has tended to have an influence over whatever he has been purchasing, not always control (but does like control).

Early share positions taken by Buffett did not grant Buffett control over the companies.

That is correct. In his early days he traded shares. He bought when undervalued and sold later at a profit. It was only after he nearly lost the lot that he invested by having some influence over the companies.

bye
 
Back on the rails

Back to the topic then.

Perhaps the lessons from the PIIGS thus far (and the ensuing carnage that may unfold) may be related back to our area as property investors.

These are times to be conservative with debt and ensure that one (country, person, family, entity) does not spend more than it earns. Common sense, right :rolleyes:

Further, at some point the time arrives to pay the ferryman. Whilst the printing presses are working overtime and those central (families) banks enjoy the cashflow from the interest on the currency that is created out of thin air, equilibrium of sorts will eventually be required.

Could Europe actually be the Armageddon and not the US? :confused:
 
Back to the topic then.
Could Europe actually be the Armageddon and not the US? :confused:

It's possible because unlike the US although they have a monetary union they don't have an economic union.

In recent times though they've got closer together and now the ECB is even buying bonds of member countries so it seems to me that they're going in the direction of a complete economic union which IMO will be good for them
 
Could Europe actually be the Armageddon and not the US? :confused:

No i don't think that will happen,but it will have ripple effects within the euro zone Spain has above 20% unemployment,maybe it will be defaulting next,one item to understand is China ships about 20% of it's exports to the European Union,if Europe slows down then that will flow all the way back to the manufacturing networks within China and that will also have ripple effects in Australia..imho.willair..
 
the exchange rate is too low anyway so that would probably temper it. as demand recovers they can pick up the ex rate and hold volumes constant

either way it forces consumption internally which is needed
 
they're only so hard working and productive because of the massive capital injection at the end of WW2. I guess it's nicer to be seen as a studious hard worker than a war mongering economic mismanager. how many times did the d-mark collapse last century? (hint: more than the aussie currency)
 
they're only so hard working and productive because of the massive capital injection at the end of WW2. I guess it's nicer to be seen as a studious hard worker than a war mongering economic mismanager. how many times did the d-mark collapse last century? (hint: more than the aussie currency)


What difference does it make as to how they got to be so productive? The fact is they are.

With 8 times the population of Greece, they export produce worth 60 times what Greece does, and even more than the US.

Germany has a massive current account surplus verses Greece's massive deficite.



I can't see how any economic union with Germanys neighbours, especially if the PIIGS are involved would be beneficial at all to them. They'd be far better off to be their own nation surely? So why would you do it?


See ya's.
 
I'm saying your timescale of analysis is too short, but i also think the reason behind things is important. give me $1bn and you can idolise me as a billionaire. for the germans to skirk off by themselves after their chequered history would be a cop out
 
I can't see how any economic union with Germanys neighbours, especially if the PIIGS are involved would be beneficial at all to them. They'd be far better off to be their own nation surely? So why would you do it?
For the Germans?
One word, control.
They went to war over it so they wouldn't let go now
 
I can't see how any economic union with Germanys neighbours, especially if the PIIGS are involved would be beneficial at all to them. They'd be far better off to be their own nation surely? So why would you do it?

See ya's.

There has still been a lot of German guilt (for lack of a better word) in the decades after WWII. They felt the need to be a good European citizen with their neighbours. Economic co-operation etc.

Having said that, I read an article not too long ago that this may be coming to an end now and Germans are starting to question how long their penance needs to be for a war that ended 65yrs ago. Will see if I can dig up the article...
 
The PIIGS weren't originally included in the EU. They saw the benefit, and in one case, indebted Italy appealed to German self interest, making the case they were better to sell dairy to an EU member (on the Euro). Helmut Kohl paved the way for the rest of the PIIGS.

I have come to respect greatly ex US Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, who cannot see the EU remaining in tact. You cannot have ~27 cultures, all with different social, economic, and political bents, pegged to the same currency. EU members have to become equally economically competitive, or be dropped.
 
Found it:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...F-debt-pd20100505-568KB?OpenDocument&src=srch

Through Greece’s fiscal crisis, Angela Merkel is now learning another major lesson. Germany, once the big driver of European integration, has reached the end of its post-war pro-European consensus. Its people are tired of paying for the mistakes of others just for the sake of being ‘good Europeans’.

Not long ago there was an easy way to ascertain that the person you talked to was German. If you asked him about his nationality, he would answer ‘I am European’ without hesitation. No matter how strong his accent, the pretence of a European identity helped the Germans leave their catastrophic and embarrassing past behind.

As memories of its Nazi history become more distant, Germany is regaining some sort of normality in its relationship with itself. The soccer World Cup in 2006 was the watershed in this respect. When millions of Germans were flying their country’s flag without any signs of shame or embarrassment, it clearly marked the end of the post-war era.

What other countries at the time did not notice was the fact that Germany’s regained national self-consciousness naturally also changed its outlook. Where once it was enough to put Europe ahead of their own interests to regain respectability within the international community, the Germans of today are no longer seeing a necessity to stress their credentials. Hence the rescue efforts for Greece have been met with outrage by the German public.
 
There has still been a lot of German guilt (for lack of a better word) in the decades after WWII. They felt the need to be a good European citizen with their neighbours. Economic co-operation etc..

That's true Steve. Helmut Kohl was motivated by WWII contrition and do-gooder spirit, to include the PIIGS.

German bankers and economists were very much against it.
 
Back
Top