Rainier

That show is pretty good. I’ve been going down a rabbit hole regarding the Asian trading houses (reading about the real life hongs and also reading Clavell’s Tai-Pan novels). I knew a little about the history, but not a lot. I was surprised to learn the massive amount of influence these guys had on huge chunks of the Asian economy. Not just Hong Kong but India and Japan and the smaller countries too. Very interesting (and still impactful) slice of history that I bet like 99% of Americans are ignorant of. I certainly was.

Wow! That is extremely impressive. Are you never dissatisfied with companies you own? The thesis never changes?

I saw the winner coming. I didn’t see the other part coming. I’m not sure why I would see that coming?

Movie was like an 8 or 9 out of 10 until the end - all of the infighting and ambition was fascinating. Plus, I didn’t know anything about a papal conclave, so it was also informative on top of being well-made with top tier acting. I won’t go into details to spoil anything, but it absolutely cratered in the last 10 minutes. Went from an 8/9 out of 10 to probably a 2 out of 10. One of the worst endings I’ve ever seen.

OpenAI o3 is out in the wild today. I am not the most informed person when it comes to AI, but the claims that we’ve reached AGI keep increasing. I don’t think we’ve reached what I would define as AGI. But these LLMs seem to have reached the “reasoning and expressing” part that would be necessary. I think of AGI as something that can reason and express itself, but can also plan and execute its own propagation without any software or hardware inputs from humans. So, thankfully, I don’t think we are at that point. Yet. Examples of complicated output: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/04/a-note-on-o3-and-agi.html

I have always thought this was the best way to lead/manage/train/mentor people. Ive also never understood those who argue against it and say that its manipulative or try to cast the leader in a negative light for it. To analogize - Let’s say you are a parent of two children and you can see that one responds well to discipline/negative reinforcement and another responds well to praise/positive reinforcement. Obviously you need both aspects in parenting (or coaching or leadership) and you basically have to mask or emphasize the two aspects while still doling out both. But wouldn’t you be failing one of your kids if you didn’t tailor your parenting style for each kid? And the other side of the equation to this is that, when they’re grown and let’s assume they are excellent at self-reflection and are objective about everything, wouldn’t the kids be appreciative if they got the tailored parenting that best helped them be successful (by whatever measure)? And wouldn’t one kid be pissed if their life was less than it could have been if the parent only had one style?

I’m probably pretty similar to Blake, in that my investment analysis experience is somewhat limited and I only have in-depth expertise in one industry. But I’ve been lurking on these boards for years (only recently signed up). There are probably 20-30 people (probably more than that, but some people post sparingly and I can’t remember them) on these boards who have really helped me understand quite a few industries, businesses, and general economics. And on the topic of economics - the learning here has been significantly more useful/accurate than what I learned in college Econ classes or what I hear/read in mainstream media. And that was with me not even having access to a big chunk of the boards for a while because they were behind the paywall!

Thanks for this. Very useful and some good names to research.

I am a bond ignoramus. Can someone explain very briefly the thesis on why long duration treasuries make sense right now? I’m not arguing against it, I am really just trying to understand. Is the thought that this is a temporary uplift in the long-term rate because of the economic chaos, and things will either settle down between US/China (and rates fall) or that we end up in a bad recession (and rates fall)? Like an eventual guaranteed win?

REGN and NVO are two obvious ones I am watching closely. I don’t think there’s any big secret about those two. Also LQDA has pulled back and may look like a no brainer in a couple of years. I just don’t have enough insight in this area to really make a high conviction investments, outside of really established big names with a stellar track record of successful trials and marketing. Basically just either buying when companies are unfairly beaten down (like NVO seems to be right now) or betting on companies with excellent track records with a good stable of drugs (even if they don’t have a home run that they are currently milking). I held CRSP for a long time several years ago because the technology is so cool. But the valuation never moved much and eventually I moved on.

I have to disagree with you here. Most of the major oil companies have very mediocre management teams. They know how to drill and complete a well. They know how to negotiate leases and how to finance projects. They are technically proficient. But in terms of capital allocation and visionary leadership, I just don’t think there are very many who stand out. They overspend when prices (and cost of drilling is high) and turtle up and don’t spend or acquire when the price drops. In my opinion, really well run oil companies are very rare. Almost unicorns. And it isn’t surprising, since you have an in-demand commodity and maybe the incentive for the board to pursue any type of marginal risk is really low. Management teams know they can generate $X amount of cash flow and make an extremely good living doing it, so there’s zero incentive to really swing for the fences in terms of shareholder value creation. Buffett’s play with Oxy was a play on the overly depressed commodity asset value with a company in a specific situation that allowed him to get the terms he wanted. I don’t think he was betting on management or the culture of the company or anything. Obviously there are top tier exploration companies and you can make money in different ways. But I would agree with others that the way to do that is to either wait until there is a lot of blood in the street with oil prices just absolutely cratered or to spend a lot of time finding the small niche setups with boatloads of cheaply accessible reserves or something similar. It’s the same with almost every industry where the players are just providing a commodity. Banking is a good example. There are a few outliers who have forced their way into niche business models or refuse to give on pricing pressure or are excellent acquirers. But they are few and far between. The vast majority of banks are filled with lenders and executives who take orders from the competitive landscape, achieve mediocre/homogenous returns across the industry, and take home pretty far paychecks.

I’ve seen several people mention that they are heavier than usual in bonds right now. I don’t have a lot of experience in evaluating bonds, I’ve mostly just stuck to bond funds in the past. For you guys who like bonds right now, are you buying individual issuances or bond funds? Any particular names/funds?

I liked the simplicity of the old site before the redesign they did in the last couple of years. I hate the fact that you can’t just CTRL-F when you first open a page because all of the comments don’t automatically load like they used to. The silver lining is that you can still access the old format by typing “old” in place of “www” in the address bar. It just sucks to have to do that every time you open a reddit page from a search engine.

Trump’s FCC Threatens to Block Mergers and Acquisitions Over DEI Linking this instead of the Bloomberg article since it is behind a paywall.

+1 I would also definitely have Hakeem and and Kareem in front of Shaq and Wilt.

Watched the first episode of the Celtics documentary on Max. It’s called Celtics City. Seems well done. You obviously have to be able to stomach a lot of Boston homerism. First episode deals with Auerbach, Cousy, Russell. Learned some stuff I didn’t know.

Thanks

No. Was a Sonics fan as a kid. Then mavericks and spurs.

How do you buy Kyoto Financial? Is there an ADR?

Agree on getting back to LeBron. And I apologize, didn’t mean to derail the thread so much. Shaq definitely doesn’t need this much attention.

Hey, I don’t hate him at all!!! I’ve got him 29th. Of course he’ll be 30th in a couple of years once Luka has a title!

If I were drafting today, knowing the trajectory of all of those players and their injuries and work ethic and everything…I would take everyone I have ranked above Shaq before Shaq, with the possible exceptions of Walton (injury), Kawhi (injury), Dr J (hard to evaluate due to ABA competition). So, maybe I’d move him up three spots to 26. But I would absolutely take Wade over Shaq. Unless I was drafting in like 1950 or something. Anytime from 1980 onward, he’d be drafted around 25 on that list. Now if it was the idea of Shaq, the version going out of LSU, that I was drafting. Then yeah, he’d be higher. But knowing what I know, I wouldn’t want a decade of fat Shaq. Fat Shaq with the Lakers benefitted from some extreme tailwinds when it comes to narratives for the league (i.e. favorable calls in the playoffs) and the level of competition in the league at that time. There were basically three teams with any hope from year to year - the Lakers, Spurs, and Kings. And no one in the East. JKidd’s nets and Iverson’s 76ers were not a lot of competition in the finals. All of the real contests were in the WCF. So, all Shaq had to do was get through the west and had smooth sailing. Plus, he had a top 10ish all time player with him in Kobe. A top 3 all time coach. And one of the best supporting casts of role players in the last 30 years. I know I’m in the minority with this opinion, and that’s fine. I’m good with living solo on anti-Shaq island. But it’s not debatable to me. Shaq is one of the all time most overrated players. Still, I’ve got him 29th on that list! That’s not bad at all! And, honestly, pretty impressive he’s that high given his (again, self-admitted) laziness.

I just mentioned 75 because the league did a top 75 list recently. I did this quick from my own memory / opinion. The lower on the list the less conviction I have about the order (except for Shaq haha!). Obviously subjective. Probably missing people. But I’ve got him I think at 29 on this list. With his natural talent, he should have been in the top 10, easily. The only others on this list who underachieved given their natural talent and size and longevity/health are Wilt, Robinson, Karl Malone, Chris Webber, Carmelo, maybe Dominique, maybe Giannis (tbd). Almost everybody else got just about everything they could out of their talent and brains. Not the Big Diesel though. Jordan LeBron Kareem Russell Bird Duncan West Magic Hakeem Steph Robertson Kobe KD Havlicek Wilt Baylor Dr. J Pippen Jokic (probably ends up top 10) Barkley Walton Dirk Garnett Isiah Thomas Giannis Wade Kawhi Worthy Shaq Moses Malone Nash Stockton Frazier Robinson Karl Malone Unseld King Jkidd Iverson Westbrook Harden Miller Payton Rodman T-Mac Ginobili Dominique Gervin Drexler CP3 Carmelo Gasol Hill KJ Webber Mullin

Yeah, Luka isn’t a defensive force. That’s his one downside. Disagree hard regarding Shaq. From a physical gifts standpoint he was a unicorn. But he was the definition of a diva, lazy, poor leadership, etc. He refused to play in a small market, despite the fact that he 1) had another star and 2) the team was well managed and built a very good contender around him. Poor teammate with Kobe. They won and they both had dominant personalities, but when you read stuff about how that relationship early on…it doesn’t reflect well at all on Shaq. I’m not one of these people that put Kobe on a pedestal, but Shaq didn’t cover himself in glory regarding the way he handled his LA years. He realized how badly he screwed up the Kobe situation and made a huge PR effort when he went to Miami to support Wade. He admits that he was lazy and didn’t work hard. Refused to practice. Didn’t want to strategize. This isn’t speculation. This is all well documented by himself on TNT and his podcast. A big part of his identity early in his career was that he wanted to be considered the GOAT. Not in the way that all players probably want that, but he was kind of in the same boat as LeBron of doing everything he could in a calculated way to position himself as a challenger to Jordan’s status (he’s talked a lot about this and how much this colored his decisions). But unlike LeBron, he was lazy. He didn’t want to practice or condition himself or manage his weight or make teammates better or really anything other than that which came naturally to him (bully people in the paint). Let himself get super fat. This is a big part of his legacy for me. Completely ridiculous how fat he was. And was sensitive about being called out on it. Created a huge ordeal with Walton (who was shaq’s biggest supporter and who was genuinely concerned about shaq’s feet) and created bad blood over it for years. He also refused to practice free throw shooting despite the fact that teams exploited it. Since being on TNT he’s sort of exposed himself as being extremely petty and a bad teammate and employee. It’s come out gradually over the years. As an example, he has talked about how the role players on teams are not important. Even Jordan who was as psycho as they come has mostly sung the praises of his role players in retirement. Recently he said that Jimmy Butler was doing the right thing by not living up to his contract and mailing it in every game and faking injuries because of pride/pettiness. It’s just a legacy of laziness. Was he dominant, yes. Is he a top 75 player all time, yes. Is he a superstar at self-promotion / marketing, yes. Should he be mentioned in the same vein as Jordan, LeBron, Bird, Duncan, Russell, Magic, West, Hakeem, Kobe, Walton, Step, etc….absolutely not. In my opinion, his peers are people like Wilt and Karl Malone. Still good, but somewhat flaky, company. Again, I admit I’m biased.

You might be right about timing with Luka. To play devils advocate though, I would encourage any Luka doubters to look at his offensive stats to date for the same period of the careers of Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Wilt or any of the all time greats offensively. He’s on track to have offensive peers of only Jordan, LeBron, Wilt, Kareem. And this is for someone who is average or below average in terms of physical traits (compared to other nba players generally and especially compared to other phenoms like KD, Garnett, LeBron, Vince Carter, etc). Hyper competitive (even among nba standards) and plays better in playoffs. Plus already has two WCF appearances and a Finals appearance on not the best teams. You’re right that it’s early, but it’s a scorching start. We will have to agree to disagree on Shaq. I’m also the opposite of a Shaq fan, so I might be biased.