Hielko

Are you sure you can't do that with Apps Script? Google Sheets is IMO a pretty powerful tool, and in many ways more suitable for what I'm doing than Excel. I used to do everything in Excel, and now I switched to Sheets. Can't remember encountering something that I couldn't do in Sheets that I could do in Excel, but plenty of examples the other way around. It's just a better tool (for me).

If you rate your broker by how they handle Mongolian bonds perhaps you need to rethink what you should expect...

Too be honest, I think the hard limit is stupid since it means that the whole cost of running the network is being shouldered by people doing transactions while everybody owning bitcoin takes advantage of the network being secure. The current system where there is a bit of "inflation" because new coins are issued is I think a lot fairer.

There are currently something like 16.7 million bitcoin in circulation, and a decent percentage of those bitcoins have been lost permanently (estimated to be roughly 25% or something like that). So the effective market cap of bitcoin is lower than you would think, and prices need to go up even higher before you can have a huge loss of wealth.

Yes, although with the note that the debt must be trading at a significant discount to par to behave equity like. Otherwise you don't have the equity like upside. And if the assets are so much more valuable than the market value of the senior debt, it would probably not trade at this level. As far as I know RELY doesn't have traded debt, so I'm wondering if you would be able to provide a single example of a debt based net net at 33% discount. I would be surprised if they exist.

I think it would: in a crisis you'd be able to deploy that cash at very attractive valuations. People mention Berkshire as antifragile because it can make nice acquisitions during a downturn - if you hold cash you can do that yourself. If stocks go down 50% your cash is suddenly worth twice as much. I guess that depends a bit on the crisis. If stocks go down because the world has changed and expected future earnings and cash flows are lower your cash isn't worth more. The stocks are just worth less. Alternatively it could be that there is a crisis that causes a lack of liquidity, and people sell stocks just to get cash. In that case your cash is indeed worth more now.

No, no, no. The only thing that matters is at what price people are willing to buy and sell Co A and Co B. Maybe the next day Co A opens at $1 dollar and Co B opens at $100 dollar... there is no formula, or any rule. The price of the new stock can be lower or higher than the price of the original company.

I like the idea, but I don't think it can work (but will admit that I haven't read the whole technical paper). But the basic argument is as follows. If it's a "green" solution with less power and resource consumption (because it's using unused space) it's vulnerable because these cheap resources would also be available for an attacker.

Actually we can just look at what happened historically when bitcoin went from CPU mining to GPU mining, and then from GPU mining to ASICs. Those moves increased the computational efficiency by an order of magnitude more than just 2x. Guess what happened? The mining difficulty just increased rapidly to nullify those computational gains. It really blows my mind how so many people don't understand this basic property about bitcoin. It's security through spending more resources than is economically viable for an attacker to use. The whole algorithm is designed to be "unnecessary" computationally complex. Computing hashes that start with a bunch of zero's is totally pointless, except that it's a perfect way to use computational resources (energy) in a way that forces an attacker to do the same thing..

Some of the most undervalued stocks on the planet, and they are all trading in Toronto. What a coincidence ;)

But was it a company that owned and operated the mine? and has the same company operated it during all that time. Probably not.

I think AirBnB leaves an automatic review in that case?

Isn't that always the case? Unless you are a huge customer at multiple brokers you can never get enough data to know where you get the best execution. That's why you need a 3rd party audit. They can compare all the transactions to the NBBO at that point in time, and calculate how much (if any) price improvement people get.

With IB you will in general pay less in fees. Period. And while this is from IB itself, so question is how reliable it is, they say that on average you gain $0.05 per 100 shares traded. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=1340 I think the lower fees are way more important than the better trade execution. If you buy 100 shares at $100 for you $10K transaction you pay something like $0.70 if you are taking liquidity and less if you add liquidity (sometimes you actually get paid). Most other (cheap) brokers charge $5+ for that. But it depends on what you exactly buy. Not everything is cheaper with IB. Especially stuff like buying a million penny stocks etc.

No, that's not what the paper implies. It just says something about the distribution of returns of individual stocks. It doesn't say what the expected return is of a portfolio of stocks. That one can be very positive.

I think 4) is a terrible short cut. It's probably better to buy a scam company that is already valued like a scam company, than buying a cheap company that will turn out to be a scam. 2) is good. Other than that I would just suggest reading the filings closely and see if things make sense.

Seems like they are removing one of the major features of it, which doesn't really translate to developing the product. We'll see, but based on their track record, it doesn't augur well. Given that it's a super old site that has never been updated I assume that they are probably going to develop the replacement from scratch or something close to it. Spending significant resources on making it possible to transport user data from the old site to the new site is presumably not worth it, especially if the new feature is going to have different features and/or data sources.

I don't think this can come as a big surprise. They haven't updated anything on Google Finance for years and years. I do hope that they aren't going to break the GoogleFinance functions in Google Drive though, I'm using those a lot!

I watched some time ago a travel show where the host was visiting a bit of a random new 'rich' city in China. He was interviewing a kid that was telling him in all seriousness that he drove a very modest car. He didn't like flashy. It was a black Ferrari if I remember correctly...

Thanks for sharing

Those bids and asks might just be indicative. Those bonds are probably not traded using an electronic order book like most stocks.

No, absolutely not. Currently to get a bitcoin transaction done you have to pay around one or two dollars, so it's actually quite expensive compared to regular banktransfers. Yes and in 1996 video over the internet was unrealistic, because if people used the internet at all they connected at 33kbps over their voice lines. People seem to have a hard time seeing where technology is and extrapolating to where it is going. Not really. When internet was slow you could envision faster speeds. For some companies it probably didn't happen fast enough (good luck with streaming video in 1996), but that was just inevitable technological progress. How fast it would happen and seeing what would and wouldn't be possible with that was of course the difficult part. Bitcoin (slash other blockchains) main innovation is that you can turn a large amount of computation power into shared trust. That really the core of the idea. The security (shared trust) only works because buying enough computational power to control the network is too expensive. That's why transactions with bitcoin or any other block chain based technology will never ever be cheap. Because if it would be cheap it would imply that the computational power that provides the block chain security would be cheap. And if that would be the case it wouldn't be secure anymore since you could rent computational power somewhere cheap and do what you want. Relative high transaction costs are the defining feature of block chains. It's the only reason it works. There is no clear technological path forward to improve that like you could see faster internet happening. To have shared trust with low transaction costs would require something completely new, and would probably make every existing block chain currency obsolete. That is where off chain transactions come into play. You don't really need your morning coffee purchase stored for eternity in the block chain. These problems will be fixed. Not really. The $ required to make it secure isn't really related to the number of transactions, but the value of the transactions being processed on the blockchain. I a hypothetical world where there are just a few blockchain transactions/hour attacking those would be just as valuable as a world where there are millions every minute, as long as they are in essence backed by the same amount of economical activity. PS. I'm doing all my transactions already off-chain, seems to work pretty well!

No, absolutely not. Currently to get a bitcoin transaction done you have to pay around one or two dollars, so it's actually quite expensive compared to regular banktransfers. Yes and in 1996 video over the internet was unrealistic, because if people used the internet at all they connected at 33kbps over their voice lines. People seem to have a hard time seeing where technology is and extrapolating to where it is going. Not really. When internet was slow you could envision faster speeds. For some companies it probably didn't happen fast enough (good luck with streaming video in 1996), but that was just inevitable technological progress. How fast it would happen and seeing what would and wouldn't be possible with that was of course the difficult part. Bitcoin (slash other blockchains) main innovation is that you can turn a large amount of computation power into shared trust. That really the core of the idea. The security (shared trust) only works because buying enough computational power to control the network is too expensive. That's why transactions with bitcoin or any other block chain based technology will never ever be cheap. Because if it would be cheap it would imply that the computational power that provides the block chain security would be cheap. And if that would be the case it wouldn't be secure anymore since you could rent computational power somewhere cheap and do what you want. Relative high transaction costs are the defining feature of block chains. It's the only reason it works. There is no clear technological path forward to improve that like you could see faster internet happening. To have shared trust with low transaction costs would require something completely new, and would probably make every existing block chain currency obsolete.

No, absolutely not. Currently to get a bitcoin transaction done you have to pay around one or two dollars, so it's actually quite expensive compared to regular banktransfers.

That's what all the fish recreational players say and do ;). Constantly trying big bluffs and big calls chasing that epic moment of being right, quickly forgetting all the times it didn't work. Or the people who have the social grace to dick around when the occasion warrants it. Are you that guy who tryhards against kids and taunts them and crap? Why would you think that? Most halfway decent (live) pro's knows that having some table etiquette is part of the game (obviously there are exceptions...). PS. Have never seen kids at a poker table :?