UK

INTJ:). Boy, I would love to know his opinion on FFH!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-10-09/fed-s-logan-yields-may-mean-less-need-to-raise-rates-video Blink blink?

I will not argue otherwise:). But for all the fear of what would happen, when rates went up so fast so much after such long of crazy low period, so far real economic damage seems incredibly low and the fear of it seems almost disappeared in the main asset markets, after big initial scare last year. Large companies (snp500) paying less interest than receiving (and this will continue for a while) and majority of homeowners having locked their mortgage interest very low for very long, I think maybe explains a lot of this resilience, since these two are the main assets? Also, sure higher rates is not stimulative for many other reasons, especially for asset prices, but in real economy, somebody's interest costs is someone's interests gain, so partly it is only some kind of redistribution? But I am really surprised myself how well everything going in real economy and in market, despite this 'epic' rate increase and bondageddon. And even in countries without long fixed term mortgages, so far nothing really bad is happening, and in a few places, where housing did went lower more noticeably (Sweden, maybe Australia) it is stabilising or going up again, while rates are sill high. And the only large and obviously bad place in terms of all this is China, which paradoxically keeps lowering already low rates:). So I am really perplexed bu all this, but maybe it is just what a normal environment looks like? Meaning more or less normal rates, without anything bad happening. Like also, didn't we had dotcom with something like 4-6 per cent rates? Go figure:)

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-09/ozempic-is-bad-for-business?leadSource=uverify wall

Hey, it sure is not going as claimed in the very begining (or almost every day still) by another side either? If one does not consider Ukraine holding (and retaking so much territory) so well against, supposedly second major military force on earth, a success, than I do not know what success is. And they achieved this even without enought equipment, aviation etc to begin with.

You know, it is very good question to ask and not only vs preferreds. But if one to agree with you yield asumption (which I more or less do), it is really hard for something else to compete with it (or even to clear this hurdle). Even such seemingly cheap stocks, like M or C or something from Oil and Gas, or you name it, they are more or less as cheap, yet I would argue, that FFH is of a much higher quality and much better for a long term holding.

Thanks!

I think it was Munger who said a while ago on this subject something like this: "just because Warren said something that was true 20 years ago does not necessarily make it true today".

A picture is worth a thousand words:). Why do you consider today's reaction as strange?

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ais-costly-buildup-could-make-early-products-a-hard-sell-bdd29b9f?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1 AI often doesn’t have the economies of scale of standard software because it can require intense new calculations for each query. The more customers use the products, the more expensive it is to cover the infrastructure bills. These running costs expose companies charging flat fees for AI to potential losses. Microsoft used AI from its partner OpenAI to launch GitHub Copilot, a service that helps programmers create, fix and translate code. It has been popular with coders—more than 1.5 million people have used it and it is helping build nearly half of Copilot users’ code—because it slashes the time and effort needed to program. It has also been a money loser because it is so expensive to run. Individuals pay $10 a month for the AI assistant. In the first few months of this year, the company was losing on average more than $20 a month per user, according to a person familiar with the figures, who said some users were costing the company as much as $80 a month.

Interesting regarding average maturity. I think I have read somewhere, that avarege maturity of federal debt is 6.3 years, so it seems that SNP did a better job:)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your question as a new topic:)

Why do you think funds will flow out of Canadian equities? And where would they flow, Eastern Europe, Middle East or China:)? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-08/how-china-s-rich-are-using-underground-networks-to-move-their-money-abroad?srnd=premium-europe&leadSource=uverify wall

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-08/bond-market-pain-is-a-sign-of-interest-rates-returning-to-normal?leadSource=uverify wall Bondageddon:)

Since I am die hard Buffett follower on this subject (productive, non productive etc), I would say he is definitely wrong. Or even if he right in some period, it just is because of the wrong reasons:) Btw, to be fair, Grantham was one of the few, who said to buy (Reinvesting When Terrified) in March 2009 and I think this was not a bad advise:). But generally they were allways to bearish or bearish to early and also made some crazy or wrong calls (on commodities, EM etc). They even made a right call on China's real estate, but if I remember correctly, it was 10 or more years ago:)

Good points.

Here you are: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-06/podcast-gmo-s-jeremy-grantham-says-no-one-should-invest-in-the-us The co-founder of GMO LLC says that, while this reckoning recently took a break, it’s now back with a vengeance. Grantham joins this week’s episode of Merryn Talks Money to make the case that—as a result—no one should be invested in the US. In particular, he warns of the Russell 2000, with its high level of zombie companies and horrible debt levels. He calls it “the most vulnerable area” to rising rates. Grantham notes that pretty much everything else is risky, too. With yields at current levels, it would be mathematically reasonable to think the US market as whole could fall by 50%, he contends. There’s trouble ahead if the “magnificent seven,” the few companies that have been carrying the index this year, lose any part of their magic. As for housing, Grantham says that isn’t safe anywhere. Look at the numbers and you’ll see the same crash in action, he explains. The speed of that crash depends on local mortgage markets and borrowing cultures—but the dynamics are the same: rates up, prices down. “Global real estate is universally overpriced,” Grantham says. Just like “farms, forests and fine art.” Fits your description perfectly:)? I saw him on an interview recently, seems almost going maniac, while talking about various doom porn things:). Maybe it is age related, I do not think he was always like that: https://youtu.be/aanwMfrSjP0?si=N7MYX-pHPiMFxFCO Watch from 1:38 min:)

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/the-oil-patch-is-primed-for-an-era-of-megadeals-3d775398?mod=hp_lead_pos4

Gee...you never know.

I would expect the next 52 Week High to be no less than 1,710.12:)

https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/oprah-winfrey-ozempic-weightwatchers-new-formula-1ec4e706?mod=hp_lead_pos7 “My position on the use of prescription medication was misconstrued and taken out of context,” Winfrey said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. “To be clear, I believe that prescription medications are an important and viable option to consider for people who struggle with weight and health related issues. Every person should be able to choose what wellness and good health means for them without scrutiny, stigma or shame.” The stock gyration highlighted a tension within WeightWatchers over Winfrey’s involvement. On Instagram in recent months, she posted photos from travels around the world—dancing in Marrakesh, riding camels in Jordan. Some WeightWatchers employees shared the posts with one another, noting that she looks great, and has clearly lost weight. It seemed the perfect opportunity to hawk WeightWatchers, but Winfrey wasn’t talking about WeightWatchers anymore. Associates from her WeightWatchers days started to wonder: Was Winfrey on Ozempic? ... Morgan Stanley predicts the new class of weight-loss medications such as Ozempic will become pharmaceutical blockbusters, worth a collective $54 billion by 2030. The analog its analysts draw: high-blood-pressure medications, which went from a nascent market in the 1980s to a $30 billion one a decade later. ... WeightWatchers jumped in to the arena March, paying $106 million to buy Sequence, a subscription service that prescribes the class of weight-loss drugs via telehealth appointments. For the first time, that allowed WeightWatchers members to get prescriptions to drugs like Ozempic that the company hoped they would couple with workshops and other traditional offerings. ... The potential upside is significant. Medicare currently doesn’t cover anti-obesity medications, and Sistani said her company stands to benefit if Medicare stops classifying such drugs as vanity prescriptions, as hair-loss medication is. “Last time I checked, nobody’s dying from losing their hair,” she said.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-israel-talks-riyadh-oil-increase-a25d6106?mod=hp_lead_pos3 Saudi Arabia has told the White House it would be willing to boost oil production early next year if crude prices are high—a move aimed at winning goodwill in Congress for a deal in which the kingdom would recognize Israel and in return get a defense pact with Washington, Saudi and U.S. officials said. That understanding is part of an effort to seal a three-way agreement that would also likely include U.S. nuclear assistance and represents a notable shift by Riyadh, which a year ago rebuffed a Biden administration request to help lower oil prices and fight inflation, severely straining relations.

Oh, ok, thanks!

I think so far the talk is more about the possible future impact?

Some estimates from SA: The comments from the nation's largest retailer added some weight to the issue that has been speculated upon loosely for months. Analysts estimate that nearly 7% of the U.S. population could be on weight loss drugs by 2035, which could lead to a 30% cut in daily calorie intake due to the consumption changes for the targeted group. Maybe not so scary and too far in the future, even if true.