LC

Lol. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. I'm just here to enjoy the mental gymnasts at work--surely politicizing masks, downplaying the threat, and holding indoor gatherings in no way affected R0 in the U.S.A.! There are no levers that Trump pulled the wrong way, surely! Oh, I don't doubt that Trump pulled every lever that he had as badly as it could possibly be pulled. Don't get me wrong about that. But, his levers were far from the most influential. It's funny that the right wing rails about how some of the northern state governors are dragging their feet on re-opening, while the left wing rails about the neglect of the southern state governors in implementing control measures in their state, and then the incurably partisan participants blame the whole works on the president, despite an obvious difference in the outcomes between the two groups of states. SJ Two things. Reducing or eliminating testing is just plain dumb. No two ways about that. Trump could have influenced millions to alter their behavior but he deliberately chose not to.

And why not? Answering that question is a big part of this thread's topic. MSFT, AMZN is not a "value" company? It's like the one true scotsman. These two companies have created some of the most value, globally, in the last decade. If anything, they are two of the most "valu"-able companies to ever exist!

To double click on the idea of "adjust to the world around you" and metric of value, I've been thinking of this idea that in tech with proven earnings a P/E of 30 might be the equivalent of P/E of 10 in traditional industries. Reason: In proven tech companies with earnings, the total addressable market (TAM) is unknown because they open new markets. This does not happen with traditional commodities & industries - ie a pulp producer is unlike to evolve to clothing apparel retailer. With tech, a computer company (like Aapl) can become a music company and then a services company and then may become a health company. So if Aapl, Goog, FB are ever trading at a PE of <30, could be the equivalent of traditionally buying at PE of 10. Does that make some sense?? I think of it similarly, not in terms of TAM but longevity. MSFT for example I think has good odds of being around for the next 10-20 years, with reinvestment opportunity. Long time horizon plus reinvestment opportunity is a winning formula. Unknown time horizon (short) plus lack of reinvestment opportunity is the opposite. I’ll also play in the middle, the broadband providers I think have a long runway but not the best reinvestment opportunities. So here the initial investment price is a determining factor of final returns.

The big question with Sears was, "who the hell wants these crap properties? And they were mostly crap. So who is going to pay 100% on the dollar for them? Are you?? In terms of value investing in general; of course it works - but you need to adjust to the world around you at some point, and stop waiting for the world to adjust to you (it's a balance). Low interest rates have made things difficult - we have boosted terminal values at the expense of near-term cash flows. Much harder to estimate at time zero. If your definition of value investing is buying under 5x ebitda or 10x PE or 1x book, well unfortunately you are fishing in a cesspool of mediocrity. So I definitely agree it is harder. Life is easy when you only need to estimate a few years of cash flows to earn your keep. With rates so low, now you have to estimate out 7, 10, or more years. This is a much more difficult task!

You've quoted global model assumptions. The following is what is driving their US based forecast: Emphasis mine. Seasonality I do not have insight on. Public vigilance we can estimate. First, we can see that US population has become more mobile post-April: http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_09.03.2020_Page_10.png From -50% average mobility, to only-20% average mobility rates. Second, we can see that US mask-wearing has stabilized around 42.5%: http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_09.03.2020_Page_11.png The question is this. Mobility and mask wearing have both dramatically increased after April 2020. Daily COVID deaths have drastically decreased over that timeframe. So in terms of the virus, one of these two factors is driving DOWN deaths. Yet if you look at their forecasts of daily deaths: https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view=daily-deaths&tab=trend You see that the universal (95%) mask-wearing forecast essentially maintains the current mortality rate. So does increased mask-wearing (as we saw in May->Aug) decrease mortality rate, or not? Or is the seasonality component assumed to be so significant that even with 95% mask usage, we see no reduction in deaths? The same holds true of mobility. Mobility increased in the Mar->Aug period, but deaths per day decreased significantly. Again, if they assume "declining vigilance" which I presume indicates higher mobility, will that further lead to decreased mortality rates? Or not? Or are these two factors insignificant? If so, why not express that seasonality is the main component here. And furthermore, why not provide justification to support such a drastic forecast driven solely by seasonality - for which we have zero evidence? Their model is not intuitive, which is usually a sign it may not be a good model. For what it's worth (nil) I presume the virus will behave like other flu-viruses, with the fall/winter months being worse. Also for what it's worth (lessthannil), the flu appears to be 15-20% more severe based on seasonality: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/CDC-influenza-pneumonia-deaths-2015-01-10.gif Which would indicate around 1,200 deaths-per-day if we translate that to COVID-19. The question is, "how much worse" and "how effective will public awareness and therapeutics be"

Projecting higher daily deaths come November versus the peak of April? I think that would require a lot of explaining.

There is a tendency to view social proof or groupthink or herd-following (or whatever you want to call it) as bad; or at least suspicious. First, social proof is sometimes quite good. As a herd of elephants or water buffalo will show you, there is safety in numbers. Humans developed this way for a reason: nature can be cruel and unforgiving, and it is easier to survive as a group. In most cases, we are greater together than alone. Secondly, there is an embedded act of selfishness in questioning the group activity, or as you put it, "does this make sense for me". You may in fact find alternatives which are best or better for you, but overall may be worse for the group. I would suggest that if everyone were to behave in this manner all the time, it would make for some sad society. Better is to find alternatives that aren't just better for you, but are better for the marginal groupmember. That is, you create more overall value with a new approach than you destroy by dismantling the old approach. This is where questioning the herd can be beneficial for both yourself and everyone else. Finally, I would also argue in some instances, it is simply not smart to sit back and question the group. Imagine if handfuls of soldiers put down arms and questioned the approach during the storming of Normandy on D-day. Maybe not a perfect example, but you get my point. Sometimes following an imperfect solution is better than waiting to machinate a perfect solution. Just food for thought!

You could own it through some type of trust which would limit your access.

If you rent it to your folks, does NYC consider you “having access” to the apartment?

Indicating you think the sell down is temporary? I am still holding my substantial Visa and Brk LEAPs, but trimmed about 50% of my "Tech" holdings yesterday (Google, MSFT, etc) along with some minor sales (let's call it "pruning") of other stuff. Sadly the main tech stock we own - a 15% position (Will remain nameless) was in a blackout period so I could not sell that. ;D

At this point, the Trump administration has zero credibility - so we're in the "put up or shut up" phase. Which is not to say the vaccine does or doesn't work, but the evidence must prove it - not Trump's word. So why not take a scientific perspective: Do we have phase 3 trial results? Have they been independently confirmed? Is anyone qualified to medically opine on the probability of a successful vaccine of this sort?

Primary (upgrade). May keep current property as an investment, not sure yet.

I too did some trimming today although not as much, and also going thru closing on a piece of property. Interesting times!

Concern is not price data but fundamental data. And in fairness, problem is not with you guys but the vendors who provide this data (Cap IQ etc.). Their line items descriptions are never 100% accurate, particularly during transitions such as before-after mergers, or sub-items/one-time items which are not accurately described or transcribed from the actual 10k/q to the CapIQ database. In other words, I'll be looking at some company's financials, it will say something like "one time item" or "other" which contains maybe 4-5 different line items summed together, and then I will still have to open the company filing to understand what the nature of these items are. And it's annoying and I sit there thinking why do I bother with this, I should have just opened up the 10Q in the first place.

How is the data quality?

Ghibli is great, keep going! Would recommend Spirited Away, Castle in the sky, Nausicaa, Howl's moving castle. And when a little older, Princess Mononoke and Grave of the fireflies. Masterpieces, all of them! (although Totoro is my personal favorite - true magic)

Seriously. The only way to win at any casino game is to cheat. Otherwise they would be out of business.

I think it's certainly "easier" to implement as a small business with an owner/operator who spends his day rubbing shoulders with his employees. But take the megacorp where CEOs make 300x the median wages. Who is profiting here - senior management and shareholders, at the expense of employees. And these beneficiaries do not encounter the average employee. So they simply don't care. I think it would be beneficial to the entire economic system if CEO & C-suite wages came down, if shareholder returns came down, and median wages came up. But I do not think it would happen by choice and nor do I think there is a good way to legislate wages. It needs to become a social norm (again).

CDC has new guidelines on COVID testing. Essentially suggesting that those who have been in close contact with COVID-positive individual, but do not present symptoms themselves, do not need to be tested. Dr. Fauci said he was in surgery and was not part of this discussion! :-X

Appreciate the perspective, SD.

Thought this was an interesting article and case study: https://www.boredpanda.com/ceo-gravity-payments-ceo-message-dan-price/

No comment on the interest rate link as I suspect it may be spurious or at the very least an indirectly correlated indicator. (OK, a small comment :D ) That said, it does seem the US has passed the crest of its "2nd wave". Good news for sure. In Europe, it appears Spain and perhaps Belgium are the only two countries where you could argue a "2nd wave" is occurring. In Spain it is more prominent, they are seeing about a 3.5-4% mortality rate in the recent reporting period, above the average. Per: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid (Financial Times infographic) It appears the US is the only country in the world with a significant "2nd wave", peaking around 17% above the average in late July/early Aug.

Edge sorting Hole card Front loading https://www.888casino.com/blog/blackjack-tips/how-to-win-in-blackjack-without-card-counting https://www.888casino.com/blog/edge-sorting/what-is-edge-sorting

private ledger vs public (distributed) ledger

10% Rumors of office space demise are greatly exaggerated