![]() ![]() ![]() In between, Buffett has managed to buy stocks at a discount, and dabble in options, derivatives etc. His operations were aided by the float generated by his massive insurance operations, which essentially provided a no-cost margin loan to further magnify his investment returns. As the size of his operations grew, he managed to start buying entire businesses. The next phase of his journey meant focusing more on buying quality companies at attractive valuations, and largely holding them. Having $100 million in assets under management in 1970 was also a different ballgame than having $10,000 to invest in 1950. As the number of companies in his investable universe dwindled for multiple reasons, he ended up folding his partnership, and focusing mostly on running Berkshire Hathaway. He managed to invest following this Ben Graham approach throughout the 1950s and 1960s. This adaptability was instrumental in his ability to build his fortune.īuffett basically started as someone who follows charts, followed by investing in a traditional value stocks that fit certain quantitative screens. His adaptability is a result of studying investing, and looking at opportunities in front of him, as opposed to sticking to a particular formula. This is a skill that we all need to acquire, in order to be able to compound wealth. I believe that he was able to deliver amazing performance because of his adaptability. This is why I have found it important to study Buffett, his methods and observe him make investments. It is very tough to deliver amazing returns and do it for a long period of time. Warren Buffett is an outlier in this regard. There are very few investors who manage to stay in the game for several decades, while also delivering amazing returns. The first is that the investors who have generated very high rates of return tend to only last for a short period of time, until their performance ends up deteriorating and they leave investing. If you look at this chart of historical returns of famous investors, you would notice an interesting fact. Lathus has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but I expect the decision will be affirmed. ![]() It is the context of appointing an individual to a political post for which the appointing politician is publicly accountable that makes the difference…. The principles applied in Blair do not seem to rest on any distinction between restricted and compelled speech. Or, at least, Plaintiff has not provided any reason to suggest that being presented with an option in her circumstances changes the constitutional calculus. From a First Amendment standpoint, the option of a compelled statement or forced resignation was no worse than no option at all (i.e., forced resignation). Carr presented Plaintiff with a choice: provide a statement denouncing Antifa or resign. He Blair analysis is applicable to claim of compelled speech. Contrary to the thrust of Plaintiff's lawsuit, Carr was not politically powerless to disassociate herself from Plaintiff's public actions through a process that authorized appointment and removal in Carr's sole discretion…. However, such exercise "does not … immunize from the political fallout" of her actions. In doing so, Plaintiff unquestionably was exercising her constitutional rights. In short, when Plaintiff decided to engage in public protest, she was expressing her views and showing support for a cause in association with other like-minded individuals. Plaintiff Shayna Lathus was appointed to the Citizen Participation Advisory Board of the City of Huntington Beach (CPAB) by former City Councilwoman Kim Carr, who is now the mayor of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach, decided by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld (C.D. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |