All Activity

Yeah I've come around to this same thought over past few hours. The fact its open source, and a few people have started to replicate results on a smaller scale means its legit advancement in the state of the art. Big win for the open source model and building together.

interview with the DeepSeek founder from mid 2024: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DW5ohZWxoCEOdrUQjokKreuArHqJdtKb/view "Because we believe the most important thing right now is to participate in the global wave of innovation. For many years, Chinese companies have been accustomed to leveraging others’ technological innovations for application and monetization. But this isn’t something that should be taken for granted. In this wave, our starting point isn’t to capitalize on an opportunity but to push to the forefront of technology and contribute to the development of the broader ecosystem."

It also makes no sense... Why would the talent leave US when talent is finally getting rewarded instead of gender or race? The only thing Europe is getting is the DEI crap. And please keep that in the US, we have far too much diversity already.

This quote also, if I’m not mistaken, also references the buy and hold aspect, in terms of letting your assets work. Not trading every news point or sitting on cash forever.

Is it 1960? Am I Warren Buffett?

Yup. "The big money is not in the buying or selling, but in the waiting" When I was searching for this quote, this clip popped up. I believe it's on point wrt the recent discussions here. Patience, coupled with recognizing the importance of errors of omission (within your circle of competence) and open, honest humility with a generous dose of self deprecating humor. The quote is not included in the clip but it's worth watching to the end anyway. Repetition of things I already know used to annoy me, but now they just reinforce the ideas. I'ma stay damn near fully invested, minus 2 years of cash for expenses plus a generous allotment for travel. I did a little house cleaning this year to consolidate into what I consider my best ideas, so I do have about 5% investible cash.

Sounds pretty well rounded. Speaking of round things, the beautiful game?

You can probably make 10-15% a year just shorting OTM puts on stuff you want to own but think is too expensive lol.

Yea and trading now is much better compared to the past. Cheap or free data, access to all kinds of markets from your phone, massive liquidity in futures and options, more newbies entering the markets due to increased accessibility keeping the game soft, and they're going to roll out 24 hour trading. Pretty great really

if you have to insist you're not a basket case . . .

Great interview. Natalia Strafti is a class act, quick bio: 2000: Began her career at EFG Eurobank as Investment Analyst, later becoming Deputy Head of Advisory and Asset Management. 2008-2014: Head of Investments and Asset Management, managing 1.5B+ in real estate investments, including green-certified office redevelopments. 2014-2021: Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Grivalia Properties REIC, leading operations and sustainability initiatives, and driving successful share capital increases and IPO efforts. 2021: Appointed Deputy CEO of Grivalia Hospitality, overseeing acquisitions, development, and luxury hospitality projects. 2025: Promoted to CEO of Grivalia Hospitality, focusing on innovation, sustainability, and expanding in the ultra-luxury sector. Intuitively a rise to CEO after 25 years with the same company just seems so much more culturally valuable than an outside appointment. Very consistent with Fairfax’s approach and their value of tenure.

Just remember - for the most part - the Federal Reserve doesn't really have the ability to create new money. Private banks and the Federal Government do - but basically the "Fed" does not. The Fed can use their tool-kit to try to influence the amount of credit extended by private banks - but they are often simultaneously working against their goals. Demand for credit and creditworthiness are the primary drivers of private bank money growth. The government's deficit stimulus is obviously the primary driver of "new dollar money" into the system and the Fed's main tool, hiking up interest rates at the end of the curve the government primarily borrows at - increases the deficit stimulus into the private sector.

Here's another example: The Fed wants to stimulate the economy by doing "QE." So they buy up interest bearing coupon securities from the private sector and now that interest income is being earned by the Fed, on the Fed's big old balance sheet. In place of the securities they bought, the private sector got bank reserves at the Fed, which at the time didn't pay interest and where of little to no use in the real economy. There was a surplus of bank reserves in the system and they are all parked at the Fed and the level of private bank lending is not constrained by the amount of bank reserves in the system - it is constrained by other regulations and market demand for new loans, credit quality, etc.. So during this period, the Federal Reserve earns a profit on their balance sheet - look it up - big profit. It remits this profit to the Treasury. What do you call it when interest income that would have gone to the private sector is instead not earned by the private sector and remitted to the Treasury, reducing the deficit? That's essentially a tax. Revenue to the government that reduces the deficit. What did QE do that was stimulative? It barely had any effect on Government bond rates. The Fed has studied this themselves and found a few basis points, maybe... They expanded it to MBS and it, along with very short durations of mortgages during the refinancing booms, led to tighter spreads on MBS over treasuries - that was stimulative. Was it more stimulative than the counter-stimulative effect spelled out in the first paragraph? I doubt it, but it is impossible to say for sure since we don't know what the spreads on MBS over treasury securities would have been without the Fed expanding QE to MBS. ** remember, "QE" and "QT" are just swapping one form of federal liability (what we call "money") for another. swapping in a bank reserve, even though those do now pay interest (new feature..) but removing a highly useful treasury security - the base highest quality collateral for the entire global financial system's transformation, leverage and exchange engine, is not a stimulative swap for the private sector

The other problem is one we’ve seen from time to time on here, and that’s sitting around playing the “guess what the Fed is gonna do” game thinking it’s some macro fortune tellers crystal ball.

Here's one small example of how your understanding of the Fed's primary tool - short term interest rates - could very well be close to 180 degrees backward. Remember that around 80% of the US debt is owned by the private sector and the rate of interest paid on this primarily short term debt increases or decreases the level of deficit stimulus - --- Here’s the scenario. You have a stable company that doesn’t make much of anything over time but also doesn’t lose value either. It isn’t a great investment but the share price, intrinsic value, etc, is basically stable. Trades at $100 per share. You own 100 shares, $10,000. [for the dense, I am going to spell it out - this is US Dollar cash in this metaphor] This company decides to implement an all stock dividend of $5 per share annually. Not a cash dividend, a stock dividend, which is more like a tiny stock split. Let’s say they target 5% annually for this stock dividend. Next year you have 105 shares but everybody else also has 5% more stock, the company is identical to the earlier scenario and the share price starts to drift down by about 5% per year, leaving the market cap of the company essentially unchanged. Each year they do this, and low and behold, the “inflation” – the rate at which the value of one share loses value, is basically gravitating towards the “interest rate”. If the all-stock dividend is targeted at 7% annually, the stock in the above example will start to experience a loss of value, per share, of around 7% annually. If the all-stock dividend is targeted at 2% annually, the loss in per share value due to this “inflation” will tend to gravitate towards 2% annually. Do you see what I am pointing out? There comes a point in the sovereign interest rate setting game, where the interest rate on government borrowing is materially effecting the size of the deficit (because the majority of the borrowing is done at the short end, where rates are not set by market forces), and a large enough share of the government debt is “owned by the public,” – there comes a point where the artificially set interest rate from the Fed starts to act like a magnet to the inflation rate just like the stock dividend example above. They are giving you more of the same instrument.

I play London system with white, and caro kann (vs e4) or kings Indian (vs most everything else) with black

What is the role of the Federal Reserve in handling inflation then gfp?

Open source is not clearly defined for AI yet. A lot of companies are open washing their AI technology and not really open sourcing all elements of their AI. There are various efforts such as this one to define open source AI: https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition. The main arguments for open source AI are: Transparency and collaboration allows for greater scrutiny, enabling researchers and developers to identify and address biases, vulnerabilities, or errors in models. It fosters innovation by enabling collaboration across organizations and reducing duplication. Decentralization of power reduces the dominance of a few large organizations, encouraging healthy competition. Access to models and training data speeds up scientific progress, allowing smaller entities to contribute. The main risks stem from poor governance. If the governance doesn't promote a vibrant community of contributors from a broad array of sources in industry and academia to contribute, the projects tend to lose momentum. The most successful open source communities (e.g. Linux) are not dominated by one company or organization and are well governed by non for profit foundations. National security risks were raised as a concern in the early days of open source software too. The same arguments were made around giving adversaries unrestricted access to powerful software. My view is that closed-source systems pose greater risks due to their opacity, making it harder to detect or prevent misuse. Insider threats are a far greater risk from closed source. This nature article has a bit more background: https://openuk.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Not-all-%E2%80%98open-source-AI-models-are-actually-open-heres-a-ranking-.pdf https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1dm2odz/not_all_open_source_ai_models_are_actually_open/

That's great Dynamic - and a perfect illustration in real-time of the fact that you do not need very many great ideas in an investing career to really shoot the lights out. There are a bunch of different ways to play this game but the way you played it has worked phenomenally, with little real risk - even with "unconventional concentration." It was available to basically any value bro that hangs out on message boards like this. And it outperforms the index.

It is interesting how different people feel about their portfolio construction and approaches, patience, concentration vs diversification and so on. I very rarely get very high conviction about a new company and a price with a margin of safety that makes me excited, but I'll then go very concentrated and put a serious proportion of my capital into it, the amount I'm willing to risk depending on how much I'm continuing to invest and how much risk of long-term loss of capital I view the position to have. It has helped that Berkshire Hathaway has nearly always been available as a default investment with good return, extreme safety of intrinsic value and hardly ever overvalued. These big concentrated positions at back-up-the-truck prices where I might sell out of other positions to buy more are fairly rare for me. Feb 2016 - BRK.B to 100% of portfolio. May 2016 - AAPL to 25% of portfolio and happy for it to grow to over 50%, but concerned over the small chance of it doing-a-Nokia to not start above 25%, the rest remaining in BRK.B. 2018 a private opportunity which I eventually put about 35% into. Sep 2023 to Aug 2024 FFH.TO / FRFHF initial 17% position, grew to 35-40% then to 50% but willing to let it grow and dominate my portfolio. Still had over 20% uninvested cash. I have also done some merger arbitrage, a little dabbling in bank stocks and buying and selling via writing short-term Puts and Calls, but nothing with this high level of conviction to back up the truck in a big way.

Sure there is: opportunity cost. And the very real risk you won't swing because fat pitches rarely look fat at the time. Best thing Blake could do is track Vish_ram's suggested portfolio against his for the next decade.

This is bonkers. I really get the feeling that you aren't listening to anybody here and your mind is so made up that it could take an entire 15 year market cycle to give you back the humility to realize you have a lot of things backwards. If you are trying to do this for a living, that puts you out of business and into a different industry. As a side note... for the 10th time or whatever it is... your understanding of the Federal Reserve's role in influencing inflation is likely wrong enough to be closer to 180 degrees backward. And if the all powerful Federal Reserve gets a handle on this raging inflation you think is right around the corner, you want to own "cash" in that scenario?

Insurance. Railroad. Energy. But is he really? Patience seemed to work for Buffett and Munger. Study when Munger bought Wells Fargo and let me know if you disagree. There’s nothing wrong with waiting for a fat pitch or two, even if you have to wait several years. I think many of us (me included) have forgotten about the importance of patience in investing.

I was actually surprised when AGT mentioned in their press release that they had over $3B in annual revenue. This could be another asset to monitor for valuation. I came across this recent interview with Grivalia Hospitality’s CEO, that provides some insight on how they develop their properties. https://www.hospitalityinvestor.com/investment/interview-grivalia

We're more alike than I thought!