RichardGibbons

Funny, I did MGM too, but leap calls.

My calculation was to take the amount of money I needed to maintain the lifestyle I wanted indefinitely, and then be willing to spend any additional on a place to live. In practice, that meant 38% of my net worth in the house back in 2019, and 25% now. It was non-optimal from a "maximize money" strategy, but a win from a "optimize life" strategy.

This seems to be how most of the world views the discussion.

At this point, it seems pretty clear that Zelensky "won" the negotiations with Trump. Trump didn't get the minerals he wanted, looked weak and foolish, and clearly isn't someone who knows how to ink a deal. Zelensky displayed strong leadership in the face of silly attacks, brought the free world onto his side, and is now getting resources from Europe. The democratic world looks to be coming together behind Ukraine. It's actually hard to think of how that meeting could've realistically had a better outcome for Ukraine.

Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. Hitler started with Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland. Russia started with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. Putin doesn't strike me as a fellow who will permanently agree to peace for our time when there are weaker countries to plunder.

It's not at all clear to me that Zelensky failed, because it's not clear to me that that was his "ONE" job. The situation is this: The USA was an ally, but is aligned with Russia now. Trump wants to plunder Ukraine's resources during a time of crisis, without offering any security benefits to Ukraine. Even if Trump did offer security benefits, Trump doesn't follow through on his deals. The only sensible deal to make with Trump is one where you get all the benefits up front. He'll renege on any other deal whenever he feels it might benefit him. Given this, the optimal strategy isn't to "secure US support", because there's no such thing if you're trying to make a long-term deal with Trump. Rather, the optimal strategy is to rebuild a new democratic alliance with the rest of the world. To do this, he could: Demonstrate to the world the degree of venality he's dealing with in the USA to rouse the emotions of non-Americans. Make every other country on the planet consider whether they could be in Ukraine's shoes, and realize that the USA would respond the same way. Make it 100% clear to Europe that the USA is not going to help Ukraine anymore. Make it extremely clear that the USA is not in the freedom and democracy business anymore. Force a viable democratic alternative to crystallize around other countries. The meeting accomplished numbers 1-4, and the only question is whether #5 will be the outcome. And, if you think Trump is playing 4-D chess, this is roughly what he claims to want too--other nations stepping up for defence, and a return to American splendid isolation combined with imperialist expansion. So, it's quite possible that this was a win-win for both Zelensky and Trump.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. This is pretty standard Trudeau virtue signalling, and it seems reasonable to me that you're interpreting it the way you are. Thanks!

I've certainly forgotten this--I loathe Trudeau, but don't remember him making insults and threats the the USA. Could you give me a reference, please? Thanks!

Respectfully, your point is nonsensical, because math matters. A covered call is equivalent to a naked put barring unexpected things like interest rate or dividend changes (which could benefit the covered call side or the naked put side.) If you sell the naked put, you effectively get the dividend, not forgo it. It's about 10 seconds more difficult to convert a long stock position to a naked put than converting it to a covered call. (Or zero effort, if you have a computer do it automatically, which you do, if there were actually money to be made doing it.) That said, at this point, pretty well everyone understands their own thoughts. So I'll just say that I'm delighted you've found a simple innovative strategy that generates above market returns for you! I don't think it's something I'll copy, but I'm glad that you're able to do it successfully.

The degree of analytic rigour in 73 Red's analysis is pretty clear when when he says that the economic outcome from covered calls is different than short puts. Really, I think anyone who's spent a year or two working with options will understand the issues with his argument, and a this point, those who are new to options should have serious concerns about his credibility on this subject.

Conservatives are much more likely to build pipelines than the Liberals, though the Liberals might talk about it these days. It's somewhat unlikely to me that a major pipeline in Canada could be built. It's very unlikely to me that a major pipeline in Canada could be built in under a decade. (My over/under would be 15 years.)

The article is accurate, except this line is a mischaracterization: She didn't say that Trudeau was ill-prepared for a trade war. She said the actions that he was taking at that moment [giving $250 to most people in Canada and temporarily putting a federal sales tax on hold] were just a gimmick to win votes for the Liberals in the short term while hurting the country's long-term ability to respond to a trade war. It matters because the Liberals have more than doubled the Canadian debt, a lot of it while Freeland was Minister of Finance. A reasoned take would be that the $600B of debt the Trudeau government added is primarily responsible for Canada's limited ability to respond, not the $6B on top of that from the $250 and GST pause.

There has been a massive bounce for Trudeau's party--I can't remember such a big swing in polls in a short time. Before January 20, the more "pro-oil development" party, the Conservatives, was looking like it would get the largest win in decades. Now, there's been a massive resurgence of the incumbent Liberal party, to the extent that I now believe that there's a good chance the Conservatives won't win a majority. (And a weak minority Conservative win is likely a return to what Canada has now--a left-wing Liberal/NDP alliance that isn't supportive of oil development.)

The funny thing about this chart is that it seems to detract from your "overvalued market" thesis rather than supporting it. Like, it basically says the market's valuation is average, except for tech and financials. And tech, considering its size, is growing insanely quickly with super-high margins right when the world gets transformed by the creation of AI. In fact, it feels like it undersells the positive impact of AI on non-tech companies, if they're only trading at average valuations. So it suggest that the broader market is average to cheap.

For sure--it's pretty obvious that everyone loses from trade wars. Pity that we're in a trade war where everyone has to lose.

I think the other obvious one is potash. The USA mines 400 tonnes, and consumes about about 6000 tonnes, 77% of which is imported from Canada. Potash is quite important if you want to grow food. Farmers would be hit first, and many of them are in red states. Then I imagine there would be significant inflation in the cost of food.

Huh. You don't hear many people lauding Turner for his 79 days as Prime Minister. What did he do in those three months that so impressed you?

Yeah, if that happens, I feel sorry for us, too. We really gotta start taking leadership and the economy seriously, and stop with the left-wing racist stuff.

To me, this is a very strange interpretation of Canadian politics, an elegant combination of dunning kruger and "I have a hammer so everything must be a nail." In early November, Trudeau was polling for one of the worst electoral wipeouts in Canadian history, and the polls didn't move for a couple months after Trump was elected. There are two things recently giving the Liberals hope for the next election. One is Mark Carney. The other is Donald Trump. All said, I agree that Trump will likely have a bit influence things now. If the next Canadian government is socialist, I think Trump will deserve a lot of credit for that change. The left wing parties are going to try really hard to run against Trump rather than their actual Canadian opponents.

You find something unusual about a country's leader visiting the leader-elect of its most important ally and trading partner who is threatening to dissolve that co-operative relationship?

Freeland brought down Trudeau. Trump had nothing to do with it.

My theory is that the Trump simply wants tariffs as a way to raise money for the government without directly taxing Americans. However, presidential Executive orders are highly restricted--they can't be used for just any arbitrary action. But they can be used when the country's security is at risk. So, I think the complaints about fentanyl and illegal immigration are simply a legal way to justify Executive orders to implement tariffs. The actual state of border security is irrelevant, because they only thing needed is the legal "security is at risk" justification. The "influence the election" theory is an interesting one, because it's unclear to me whether that would mean Trump wants the Liberals to win the next Canadian election, or that he's not smart enough to realize that these actions are likely to improve the Liberals' chances in the next election.

Yep, I think you're largely right. Canada has plenty of uranium, and it feels like it's about time for Canada to build a nuclear arsenal. Just to protect our national interest of course, since Trump's made it clear that he doesn't really see any other countries as allies or worth defending.. Even better, it would increase Canada's military budget, just as Trump wants, making NATO far stronger.

FWIW, I find a fair amount of value from people just posting what they're buying, even with nothing else. Discussion is great as well, of course.

I retired about a decade ago, at about 20% over my minimum number. Since then, my net worth has increased at a faster rate than inflation, so the margin of safety has increased. I have more of a barbell risk strategy than I would have if I were still trying to get to the number--more conservative and more risky.