Subject: Re: Morningstar lowers moat rating
I also don't like when the "from" item comes after the "to" item. It makes the sentence more difficult to understand in left-to-right languages (which leads to left-to-right understanding, both for language, and for logic/math statements).

Sadly that has become the norm in most business stories I see. When I talk to someone it’s always “from” —> “to”. I’m going from Pittsburgh to Boston. My sales went from $100m to $200m. I’m going from the 2nd floor to the 9th floor, not “I’m going to the 9th floor from the 2nd floor.” I started noticing the reversal a few years ago; I didn’t like it then, I am still not used to it, but I don’t know who to complain to to make it stop.

Meanwhile the “downgrade” makes a couple of valid points, such as “Capital allocation” after Warren. Of course right now capital allocation with Warren is proving difficult, so…

Frankly I have wondered for a while about the whole “moat” thing. There are times when it is wide and wonderful - city newspapers for 50 years between 1950-2000, for instance, and suddenly there’s no moat at all. I have never understood the moat for See’s except “good candy”, but so what, there’s lots of good products that hit the skids. Coke? OK, but maybe “liquid candy” will hit the same “healthy” patch that tanked other consumer favorites (probably not, but heck, anything *could* happen).

I’m a firm believer in energy (we’re always gonna need it, and from whatever source is available.) And insurance, a business that’s as old as we are. And BNSF because building an integrated rail system - including ports - is near impossible. Then again that’s what they said about the Buffalo News and Washington Post, both struggling at the moment.

Anyway, overall I don’t disagree with the piece (much) but for me, at least, it’s already a case of “in for a penny, in for a pound.” Except for the considerable stack in the IRAs, the rest would require a big haircut to exit and I have no better prospects anyway.