All Activity

I loved that he called her out and said "many people hate you the mainstream media", IMO we need more of that. They aren't journalists, it's all fox news now. The are framers/perpetuators of x ideas, it's not like they are truth seeking, although for some that may rank number 4 or 5 on the list, if they have the time and can fit it in. The economist has gone downhill for a decade. The funny thing is that attacking the media is exactly what a free speech absolutist would do, the opposite of hypocritical. Speaking harsh words is the only kind of free speech that matters.

Is there a market for perpetual Fartcoin futures yet?

And that block chain can effect faster/cheaper transactions without the need for banking intermediaries that take a cut as a result? I thought this was already well accepted.... I mean V has an annual data processing expense of $890 million to move $14.2 trillion in annual payments (both credit and debit) or 1 bp ($0.0001 per payment dollar moved). So, if we're just comparing electronic bits moving through a network, I'm fairly certain Visa's marginal cost to move bits is also pretty much close to zero. So there's no technological innovation here in cost per transaction vs current payment rails. But I get it, there are financial institutions making these debit payments and they take a cut. And to emphasize the point - we are talking about debit transactions not credit card transactions. The average US debit transaction of $40 at a large bank costs 23-cents in interchange (0.00575 per payment dollar) so this should be the proper comp in that up-thread article. I would argue that the real comp for blockchain then should also include the on- and off-ramps to/from bank deposit accounts. What is the all-in cost then to compare against a Visa debit card payment? I bet its not less than .00575 per payment dollar. I include the on-off ramps, because we are never going to live in a world where Bitcoin is an actual currency that anyone spends. Even if we look at US-regulated stablecoins as a payment medium, they are not gaining any traction from what I can see. Paypal's stablecoin is dead in the water, and Circle's USDCs in circulation is down 7.1% so far in 2026 (CRCL promised 40% CAGRs, lolz). Meanwhile, bank deposits are up 4% in 2026, and currency in circulation is up 2%. Go fiat! Look - I'm not anti Bitcoin, I'm just a neutral to slightly skeptical agnostic. Bill (full disclosue I have been short CRCL since after it went public).

Do agentic AIs not have the same problem that they may distrust one another on payment? And do block chain rails where they can identify the wallet balance beforehand, and smart contracts that escrow the funds until actions are taken, not relieve that burden of fraud/nonpayment? And that block chain can effect faster/cheaper transactions without the need for banking intermediaries that take a cut as a result? I thought this was already well accepted....

Elon Musk whining about a journalist asking some real question. And pushing back on some of his nonsense . Traitor of the West. LOL

The National Bank analyst raised their target from $3300 to $3450. There is quite the disparity now between different analyst targets.

Still not addressing the issue. If you want to discuss another issue that is fine. "Losing the Iran war" is like calling a baseball game in the top of the 2nd inning for a team down 10-0 with a depleted lineup. Narratives don't win baseball games or wars.

Can you elaborate on why this statement loses the author credibility? Because the author is comparing a credit transaction (funds are being borrowed with the associated compensation built into the transaction cost for credit risk being assumed by the lender and not the payment network) with a debit transaction (funds are in place ahead of the transaction and being withdrawn from a deposit account). That means the author is either unaware of the difference (hence my ignorant sports fan analogy) -- or, worse, is aware and deliberately misleading the audience for obvious promotional reasons. Bill

So now you're doing the Greg approach (the one thing about Greg that is intolerable to read and I wish he'd stop), rant and whine about other's opinions. A slight change of spirit so to say with a question: Can we say to the degree we bomb Iran equals the degree to which we are losing the Iran war? And what's the read delay in their nuke program? Trump says 50 years; I read 9 months to a year.

Spreadsheet are useful but fail to capture a ton of business qualities such as scarcity value like sports teams or hard to permit mines. They can also mislead in the case of companies which are current cash cows but at high risk of being obsoleted (Adobe) or are too aggressive in price taking (discretionary spending like Disney or luxury goods). As Druk says, the market is right 80% of the time. I don't discount the collective intelligence on the other side of the trade. In the case of Nintendo, I'll be stubborn. Btw, I think the companies which Acquired covers are a reasonable proxy list of great companies.

@Dealraker, why do you continue to avoid the issue? The issue is voting and policies/issues. Nothing more. John is able to understand that. Why can't you? I'm not asking you or anyone to like Trump but that is not the issue. Perhaps when you finally figure out that there were and usually are only 2 candidates running for President, you'll begin to understand why Trump retains support rather than rant and whine about mostly nonsense.

I don't find any attempt to justify your words any better. Startling as to lack of sensitivity for folks who lost entire families and pedigrees to the likes of Hitler. "Nationalism" did not lead to Hitler and is not, in and of itself a problem. It is but one of many variables that all came together to contribute to 1930s Germany.

Shorted SKHY Hoo boy I hope it doesn't squeeze too bad

I'd say that having a maniacal focus on cash generation and per-share growth in the relevant metrics (EPS, FCF, BV depending on the company) is the key part. You don't need to own something that is considered great, when companies generating heaps of cash and returning more and more of it every year will do just fine in terms of generating wealth. Another approach would be to ask what a great company that fails to create shareholder value even is. You could pretty reasonably argue that there aren't any, but that clearly isn't the consensus view of the markets. From what I've gathered, the label "great" usually gets stuck onto exciting, high-margin businesses with fast growth in typical investing discourse. That already offers a bunch of pitfalls to fall into: increasing competition leading to losing margins, diworsification while growing, brand dilution, overpromises broken and so on. A lot of these traits seem to go for consumer brand companies in businesses where there isn't some special barrier to entry to market. Maybe you could say that if a company cannot primarily focus on their shareholders when deciding over business matters, then it might not be such a great business after all. Another issue is if a company seems to be run for someone else than all their shareholders. These kinds of firms are relatively easy to avoid by looking at stock ownership among the board and the directors, cash compensation, SBC and stuff like that, fortunately. Also, failing to create shareholder value needs to be clearly separated from failing to create shareholder returns. Overpaying for a truly great shareholder value creator hurts in the short term, but if the business case remains intact, the returns will follow sooner or later (although if you pay 50x for damn near anything, you'll likely do a lot of waiting).

Wow - hadn't heard of this. I am a fan of New World (Aus/NZ) Dry Rieslings - go really well with food. Don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK, most people are still suspicious of Riesling due to all the cheap, sweet stuff from Germany that was around in the 70s.

Thx for clarifying SiN, appreciated.

I think I'm a tad confused. Can you elaborate on why this statement loses the author credibility? I'm curious because this a real problem and there are companies that rely on innovation here in agentic space (thinking Cloudflare and their L402 and x402 integration in the Workers platform).

I have access to Burry's substack where the whole post is. The argument is again PE-owned life insurers. I.e. PE companies have a captive insurer, they ratchet up risk using offshore entities and lax regulations for overseas subsidiaries to leverage these these things up to juice returns on the fixed income side. And then they sell premium as quickly as they can to collect the upfront cash/pay day on the insurance side. And as long as everything goes well, the PE company makes it rain cash. And when it goes south? State regulators and the surviving insurers bare the cost of the failure a la their social insurance. Privatize the gains. Socialize the losses.

We should also think about those “great” SaaS companies that have yet to earn a decent GAAP profit. Just machines that feed on common stock investors in order to churn out employee stock based comp. Many investors, including “value investors” were willing to pay huge multiples for these (valuing them off Price/Sales, of course) and got totally hosed. Stock based comp is, unfortunately, a real expense. And reality eventually always reasserts itself. Then there are software companies like Adobe, Intuit, even MSFT in some cases that have grown accustomed to abusing their customers with insane pricing and price rises year after year. Intuit lobbies regularly to keep the U.S. tax code complex so they stay in business. It’s actually great to see AI deliver a little karma…

Excerpt from the article Libs posted: “Legacy credit card and banking infrastructures are unsuited for agentic micropayments due to their fee structures; a standard credit card transaction averages 2%-3% plus a flat fee of approximately US$0.30, versus AI agent payments that average US$0.001 to purchase a single second of compute or a data query.” Statements like this are like when someone claims they are a huge sports fan and says "I think LeBron is going to hit 50 homers for the Sixers next year". Credibility immediately goes out the window. Lolz.

It’s definitely cheap but no natural buyers so it makes sense to trade around it and you are helping provide liquidity to a fellow traveller. Win win I say. I was already at my core position so I didn’t sell any and got spoiled by that $3 price. I trade around FIH too but not FFH.

Doubtful. I don't think even the Saudi deal for civilian nuclear power will work out. And I really doubt they will be enriching their own stuff. What is far more likely is more dependence on the U.S. to provide defense/weapons similar to Europe. And I think Ukraine will become a huge exporter of defense weapons/tools too thanks to their expertise in drones/air defenses/etc. In fact, Iran has just learned from this conflict that it doesn't even need a nuclear weapon. It can just threaten ships in the Strait/energy infrastructure in the Gulf. Iran now knows it possesses a very real source of leverage. Nukes are not necessary.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-26/us-pauses-iran-strikes-for-second-night-as-red-sea-tensions-rise?srnd=homepage-americas Again, too many people want resolution of this for it to become a real problem. Obviously tail risks are that the crisis spirals out of control, but the base case is that the Strait reopens and does not stay shut long enough to cause too much damage because too many of the major players (USA, China, OECD, Gulf Nations, etc) want the Strait open.

Have they shown the burning tanker yet? It may be true, but I'm skeptical. This is all "according to Iran’s military-linked state media". Oil futures down 4-5% by the way. Maybe the market is smarter than the Western media lapping up Iranian propaganda.