Luke

Conviction day: Added to Prosus at 70.30€

Added to FFH and TXN

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/economy-outlook-us-recession-delayed-corporate-debt-binge-low-rates-2023-7 The bank highlighted that going back to at least 1975, corporate net interest payments would rise as the Fed raised interest rates. But for the first time in a long time, that isn't happening. Instead, as the Fed raised rates over the past 15 months, corporate net interest payments actually fell. "Normally when interest rates rise, so too do net debt payments, squeezing profit margins and slowing the economy. But not this time," Societe Generale's Albert Edwards said in a Thursday note, pointing to a chart that he called the "strangest" he has seen in a very long time. It turns out that during the period of near-zero interest rates, especially leading up to the pandemic and during the pandemic, corporations took advantage and refinanced a ton of their liabilities into long-term, low-rate, fixed debt. According to data from Bank of America earlier this year, companies bought themselves some time to navigate higher rates. The debt composition of SP 500 companies includes just 6% in short-term floating rate debt, just 8% in long-term floating rate debt, 10% in short-term fixed debt, and a whopping 76% in long-term fixed debt. "Companies have effectively played the yield curve in reverse and become net beneficiaries of higher rates, adding 5% to profits over the last year instead of deducting 10%+ from profits as usual," Edwards said. The lack of a profit decline means companies didn't have to resort to a big wave of layoffs that would have dented the economy and thrown it into a recession. The low-rate, long-term debt held by corporations, combined with their pricing power during a time of elevated inflation, means most businesses were able to grow profits in a big way. (especially true for SP500 businesses, average Joe restaurant has a harder time)

The first half was great, second half indeed was a bit weird...

Nice!

Not only that but the Volume is so little, they would shoot up the share price. To get to 2B it needs many weeks of the total daily volume being bought.

Already did, you can count on me ha!

Shifted some of Nintendo into Evolution. Evo now 4% of my PF.

Fairfax was not on my radar back then, i would have bought it earlier.

Thanks for sharing, strongly agree!

Interesting and thanks for sharing

Read a nice comment regarding this. The Ai revolution is people still using Office 365 for the next decade? To do what?

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/core-module-small-modular-reactor-completed-china China completes core module of world's first commercial onshore small modular reactor: The nuclear reactor has achieved a significant milestone in its construction by completing its core module. Built by China First Heavy Industries, the core module is the most critical part of the reactor and has been built using technology developed in China. Once completed, the reactor will produce one billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually to power 526,000 households. In addition to providing carbon-free energy, the reactor will provide additional benefits such as urban heating and cooling, steam production, and seawater desalination. This is expected to fresh water in areas where conventional reactors are not feasible. The technology has potential offshore applications in disputed areas like the South China Sea. The country is also looking at deploying SMRs on small islands with relatively smaller populations of a few thousand people, where they will also be able to serve as a freshwater source. The technology could also be exported to countries that are part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China's neighbors in Asia, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, with multiple islands in their geography.

Why would the cost of capital decrease with technological advancement? Could you link the book "Death of Money". Thanks!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-europe.html NATO isn't what it says it is: Only four years ago, on the eve of another summit, the organization looked to be in low water; in the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France, it was undergoing nothing short of “brain death.” Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the situation has been transformed. As NATO plans to welcome Sweden into its ranks — Finland became a full-fledged member in April — and dispatch troops to reinforce its eastern flank, European Union allies are finally making good on long-deferred promises to increase military spending. Public opinion has followed suit. If Russia sought to divide Europe, President Biden could plausibly declare last spring that it had instead fully “NATO-ized” the continent. But NATO, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power. Fielding 100 divisions at its Cold War height, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact manpower, the organization could not be counted on to repel a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it set out to bind Western Europe to a far vaster project of a U.S.-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful. Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own. NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus. Whatever the levels of expenditure, it is remarkable how little military capability Europeans get for the outlays involved. Lack of coordination, as much as penny-pinching, hamstrings Europe’s ability to ensure its own security. By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action. As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors. The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves. Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget — less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened America’s hand. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards. In Ukraine, the pattern is clear. Washington will provide the military security, and its corporations will benefit from a bonanza of European armament orders, while Europeans will shoulder the cost of postwar reconstruction — something Germany is better poised to accomplish than the buildup of its military. The war also serves as a dress rehearsal for U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support cannot be so easily counted on. Limiting Beijing’s access to strategic technologies and promoting American industry are hardly European priorities, and severing European and Chinese trade is still difficult to imagine. Yet already there are signs that NATO is making headway in getting Europe to follow its lead in the theater. On the eve of a visit to Washington at the end of June, Germany’s defense minister duly advertised his awareness of “European responsibility for the Indo-Pacific” and the importance of “the rules-based international order” in the South China Sea. Left parties in Europe, historically critical of militarism and American power, have overwhelmingly enlisted in the defense of the West: The trajectory of the German Greens, from fierce opponents of nuclear weapons to a party seemingly willing to risk atomic war, is a particularly vivid illustration. Stateside, criticism of NATO focuses on the risks of overextending U.S. treaty obligations, not their underlying justification. The most successful alliance in history, gathering in celebration of itself, need not wait for its 75th anniversary next year to uncork the champagne.

Stratosphere.io

Added to FFH

I completely disagree with what you say

You have never read this book and assessed its quality or legitimacy. It has some pretty bad ratings too, i will have a deeper look the coming weeks. Nothing has changed for the arguments i have been making, also not some allegedly off-topic holocaust revisionism by chomsky which is ridiculous to begin with.

I wish you would provide facts of why his argument is wrong or bad instead of just commenting "loony"

Thanks for sharing, it looks interesting!

And I have replied to these two things, his comments regarding Pelosis Visit and the Situation around Taiwan are also actually quite interesting. I disagree with your "biological weapons" and also how you asses China with Taiwan. I also disagree with your comments about Chomsky. Why is it necessary for you to insult him so much, you can also just state your disagreements. Lets agree to disagree and move on

I asked you to elaborate what makes him an idiot according to that clip? I also disagreed with you that academic credentials dont matter in political debates, they matter to me. You shared that they dont matter to you but i have a lot of respect for an academic and knowledge giant like chomsky. Please elaborate precisely why you think chomsky is an "academic loon".

Gangster!

Calling him an idiot while claiming "I know absolutely nothing about the guy" doesn't look very promising to me. He wrote so many great books, manufacturing consent, hegemony or survival etc