LC

I'd say somewhere between "good" and "so-so" Colleagues in my age cohort (late 30s/early 40s) are all in established positions, making good money. However the ones getting laid off are having difficulty finding work. Had a buddy in digital product marketing out of work for 1-2 years who finally was able to find a new gig, another who was just let go from a well paid data analytics position. At the risk of saying silly macro things, I think employment pressure is only going to increase the next 12 months or so, unless Trumpy can convince JPow to drop rates? I just don't see where reinvestment funds or incremental macro demand will come from.

You are fighting a losing battle, friend. You need support from high places to make the changes you are suggesting. For what it's worth I agree with your position - the issues you have raised are a black mark on the QC investment community, for sure. However QC judges are not going to rule in your favor, nor will lawmakers make any changes addressing your concerns, without a big gorilla in your corner. Just my two cents - I think you either need to lay it to rest, or spend your time courting powerful friends. Perhaps newly elected politicians who want to make a name for themselves? Appealing to the good conscience of the justices / public I think will have limited impact. Good luck, I enjoy the periodic updates of this saga/crusade.

@Green King Valuation wise I think it's worth at least 10x earnings. Heavy capex discourages new entrants, demand is relatively stable, and I assume they have low cost feedstock. Buying at 10x trough earnings gives Buffet a solid margin of safety, IMO...tough to lose at this price. Mid cycle oil prices in the high 70s low 80s turn this into a winner. Market multiple doesn't matter now that it's under the Berkshire umbrella but if he were to sell this, I'd imagine it would be at 12-15x mid cycle earnings. And given Berkshire's low cost of financing, tons of cash on the balance sheet, I think this is a good move turning 10B earning 4-5% in treasuries into a stable business earning double that, at least.

I agree with this. I thought reducing duration was a mistake. Not just based on my idea of future rate movements (I think falling rates are more likely than rising rates), but also just practically - 4yr duration provides a lot more earnings transparency and stability, which 1) the market will reward with a stronger valuation and 2) will give them opportunity to reinvest that cash flow (vs reinvestment of the short duration principal)

Good luck. Curious what attracts you to owning a bar/bars? How are you thinking about foot traffic decreasing?

I think LTM earnings were higher than the Q2 runrate - i.e. results can be lumpy and probably tied to oil prices. I think Berkshire got a good deal. Was Buffett the matchmaker here? Vicky goes on an acquisition spree to consolidate the Permian and sell it to a major, with Buffett backing the shares. Warren gets his cut via oxychem + the carry (preferreds). Vicky gets paid out in a sale, Exxon or whomever gets the asset.

Sure but this is hindsight. In the middle of a crisis, that is not the time for soft messaging. My friend's partner is a physical therapist in NYC. She sent pictures at 2 am of 3+ 18wheelers with refrigerated shipping containers, just outside her facility, used to hold overflow bodies as facilities were totally overwhelmed. When planes hit the twin towers, NYPD et al didn't say "well this is an evolving situation...", no they told everyone "do this, do it now, don't question it - for safety" and they figured out the repercussions later. I mean it's not a perfect analogy but honestly I don't think the Fauci/CDC messaging was bad at all. Wear masks, keep distancing. Seems reasonable to me, at least in the heydey of the pandemic. But it was a very polarized atmosphere so I'm sure it ruffled people's feathers particularly as time went on.

Problem with that is it turns into kids not getting the measles shot and their parents sending them off to school. Happened right here in CO with some granola family. Critical thinking in short supply.

Yeah it's a fair point on COVID child mortality, as of 2023 it was like 8,000 0-9y/o mortality compared probably single digit vaccine deaths in that age range, but still a very small number. And sure, not everyone can be a phD but the flipside to that argument is exactly that: Most people are not phDs, rather there are a ton of people competing for unskilled labor.

I'm all about being open minded to learn something new - not to indulge conspiracy theories. The science is clear (vaccinations), the economic reality has been studied ad nauseum and is also clear (immigration), what else is there to say? Vaccinations in particular are known science, not some economic theory where everyone has an opinion. Even if you reject the science () just practically it makes sense: How many five year olds have died from the COVID vaccine, versus COVID? IMO those not-very-highly-skilled Americans should aspire to be more like you with nice degrees, and more importantly, an educated and critical mind.

This again? Seems every time the country goes thru some nationalist-crisis-of-identity, the anti-immigration arguments come out. Nobody is complaining when everything is coming up aces To me that is a sign that people use immigrants (i.e. "the unknown") as a scapegoat for their problems. C'est la vie! In addition to the CBO's analysis posted above, here is what Congress had to say: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf Immigration generally also improves the government’s fiscal situation, as many immigrants pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they consume in government services. However, native-born residents of states with large concentrations of less-educated immigrants may face larger tax burdens, as these immigrants pay less in taxes and are more likely to send children to public schools. Wharton's take (heavily borrowed by Congress above): https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy I recall arguing this same topic during Trump term #1 here on COBF. The data generally shows a net positive for the country, particularly from 2nd- and 3rd- generation immigrants. I find it difficult to sympathize with Americans who blame immigrants for their woes, and proceed to follow Trump down a gilded drain. These are the same people ignoring vaccines for their children but drinking bleach and horse de-wormer to cure COVID and believing Tylenol causes autism, but who won't pick up a book nor be bothered to educate themselves. "The immigrant is causing a breakdown of law and order, a destruction of our culture!", says the masked ICE agent violating the Constitution. Irony abounds on this topic.

Fair enough - appreciate the context. And congrats on the 40%!

This is what blows my mind. Were these people given any rudimentary education of 20th century medical history? Have they not seen smallpox photos etc.? Incredible they are willing to gamble with their children's lives against medical science that has been proven over decades and centuries. They worry about "potential side effects" when they themselves were given all these vaccines as children, with no side effects. It's mind blowing.

Curious why now? I have not been posting the recent news in the Aecon thread, but it looks like all 3 LSTKs are actually nearing completion. (The discord channel is more active here) Finch is I believe ~halfway thru the 30 day revenue service demonstration period, Eglinton just began its revenue service demonstration period, and news reports confirmed GH bridge to open within 90 days.

Sounds like some of the ICE goons took a few days off to enjoy the Ryder Cup, at the expense of everyone else! https://nypost.com/2025/09/30/sports/rory-mcilroy-demands-ryder-cup-fan-get-booted-over-homophobic-slur-in-new-video/

So Biden was removing barriers to illegal immigration, whilst assuming that illegal immigration would fall!? It's like saying "honey...the sink is leaking...let me open the faucet - that'll stop the water!" Biden's policies that were "illegal immigration friendly" (I'm taking a real chance quoting you here - hopefully you didn't actually mean "unfriendly") were really just the status quo for decades - and congruent with domestic and international settled law. Decades over which immigration volumes came/went in waves. You blame Biden for enforcing the law the same way you ignore Trump breaking the law. And when Biden re-enacted Trump's policies (at court order, which he actually complied with) - well that obviously doesn't count. Oh and when Biden legally goes and rounds up and deports/rejects record volume of illegal immigrants, whilst complying with the constitution - nope, doesn't count! Oh and when he tries to pass bipartisan laws to further limit illegal immigration, and Trump torpedo's it - well that's Biden's fault too! It's an absurd position to take, because you don't want to admit Trump created a problem, ran on the problem, and is now crapping all over the constitution to "fix" the problem, which is really just an excuse for him to consolidate power. But I guess it's easier to cry "liar!" when challenged on it. At least allow me a minute to find some pearls to clutch!

My perspective is that you are debating semantics at the expense of the plot. It is frustrating. For example regarding Biden's immigration policy, I don't care how you want to label it: "encouraging illegal immigration" vs your description: "run on an illegal immigration friendly platform" "incentivise them by saying we will provide you a pathway to citizenship" "call them undocumented rather than illegals, and when you promise a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented" The meaning is clear, whether you want to get caught up on semantics or not.

When the facts don't agree with your narrative, I would imagine laughter helps smooth the cognitive shock. Why would Biden send back record numbers of illegal immigrants, if his goal was to encourage illegal immigration? It doesn't pass the smell test. And maybe this is not "modern" enough, but some history may help contextualize the US treatment of immigrants at the Mexican border: Early 20th century violence (1910–1920): This period along the Texas-Mexico border was marked by state-sanctioned violence against Hispanic Americans by the Texas Rangers, an era that some consider the worst violence ever perpetrated in the U.S. Mexican Repatriation (1930s): In response to high unemployment, the U.S. government forcibly rounded up and sent back hundreds of thousands of people to Mexico, including many U.S. citizens. This campaign was often fueled by anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia. The Bracero Program (1942–1964): This guest-worker program was established to address World War II labor shortages but was marred by reports of mistreatment and poor working conditions for Mexican workers. Operation Wetback (1954): This initiative resulted in the mass deportation of nearly 4 million Mexican immigrants, raising severe humanitarian concerns. The period was characterized by anti-immigrant sentiment, despite an active guest worker program. America has a lovely history of abusing our immigrants from the southern border, apparently lost on some modern Trump supporters.

Ah yes, my famous sleight of hand...of quoting the reference article that you yourself posted! Trump's 2nd term I imagine is on track to turn away even more than Biden's term - does that indicate an even more colossal failure of Trump's policy? Your logic breaks down. Or maybe that's more LC deceptive practices, who knows? Regardless I'll stand behind my thesis: Joey Baloney (Joe Biden) grew tired (sleepy joe!) of fishing for trout and wanted to play catch and release with some central american immigrants instead!

This was a somewhat sarcastic remark that apparently, was lost in internet-translation. As someone living in America I can tell you it's common knowledge the efficacy and completeness of Trump's "wall" is exactly what you would expect from a real estate development led by Donald Trump From the same article: "spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, who said, in part, that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration "has removed, returned, or expelled more migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in four years." So given Biden "let in" the most illegal immigrants, and also expelled the most illegal immigrants...do you think he got bored with catch and release fishing and decided to institute it as a national endeavor? I think his administration got caught with a wave of illegal immigration, and did their best following the laws and precedent. Was he slow and uninspired in his approach? Absolutely. Probably due to the sleeping pills Hunter was slipping in his evening cocktail, who knows... Still doesn't excuse Trump's nonsense.

Yeah Biden definitely campaigned on this (i'm guessing the "im another old white geezer" card wouldn't play), and you're also right about the timeline of the border security bill. But I'm no fan of Biden nor Trump, and idgaf about who proposes a good solution. I just want a reasonable solution where we don't have a bunch of homeless dudes and criminals walking the streets in every downtown metro in the US leaning over on fentanyl like their vertebrae stopped functioning, nor do I want ICE proud boys with tacticool gear ripping normal people's heads off and shipping them to a hellhole in Nicarague, either.

This is not true as thousands of Ukraine refugees came thru Mexico and were granted access to the US. But again I am not even arguing the against the policy. It's certainly more reasonable than ICE agents in Chicago rounding up brown people. My point is that we had reasonable solutions proposed under Biden, he even (unwillingly, admittedly) reinstituted Remain in Mexico under court order (or should I say parts of it to satisfy Sweet and avoid more "deceptive" accusations)...and Trump torpedo'd it all because of ego. You've got a bipartisan bill that provides decent solutions to a difficult problem. Trump shoots it down. And somehow it's everyone BUT Trump's fault, and so now we acquiesce to Trump burning up Constitutional rights? The logic doesn't track - but it illustrates exactly how a subset of Trump supporters will hold dear anything Trump touches without any critical thought.

Well anyone with a cursory knowledge of the US-Mexico border knows nothing will ever be "fully built" along that border. The difference is some people like Trump actually thought it would work. Need to queue up some more Benny Hill alongside Mexicans climbing up with recipro saws... 25,000 people over 2 years, I think? Not exactly mind-blowing numbers considering Trump is going after 3k people per day. Again, the question of efficacy... Absolutely it's his right to torch everything he touches, including the Constitution. "Win" for Trump - bad for America. Seems about right.

As to who said what - I am happy to let the readers be the judge. As to your point: again Biden actually complied with judicial decisions: Biden resumes Remain in Mexico: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/02/1060896872/u-s-will-resume-remain-in-mexico-policy-for-asylum-seekers Biden expands Remain in Mexico: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/biden-remain-in-mexico-expanding You love accusing me of being deceptive with little evidence, but I'm not representing a pandemic-era process as a status-quo activity to justify the unconstitutional ICE behavior in 2025.

I can't even begin to express my disbelief at a half-built fence as a serious measure to control immigration. The policy was initially ended by the Biden administration, and after some legal battles, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on June 30, 2022, in Biden v. Texas, that the administration had the authority to end the policy. In December 2022, however, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from ending the program. Remain in Mexico has been widely criticized by human rights organizations for exposing migrants to attacks while they awaited processing I am right there with you that Biden could've taken legal, constitutional, reasonable and effective steps to limit illegal migration. In fact that is what his bipartisan bill sought to do. It was torpedo'd by Trump and his sycophantic hold over republican senators and the GOP.