Palantir
-
Posts
2,628 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Palantir
-
-
While Booth has better brand name, it's not the FT MBA program, which is the "real" one. AFAIK, Booth part-timers don't have access to the same recruiting channels, and I have heard at events they used have to wear colored bands to clearly depict their status. I don't know if that's true anymore, but you get the picture. The PT program is really geared for people who are working and plan on staying in their company, while FT programs are more relevant to career-changers.
-
The problem is there are so many unknowns so that you cannot estimate the payoff of climate change. Yeah maybe a few trade passages open up and maybe some frozen land thaws, but it could result in droughts, permanent weather pattern changes that could affect crop yields, warming climates could now be exposed to new tropical diseases to which animals have no immunity, leading to extinction events.
Thinking about the net impact of climate change won't get us anywhere.
It doesn't cost all that much to help solve the problem. Start subsidizing renewable energy, and minimum have tax breaks for RE.
-
The alternative energy threat is still only part of KSA's strategy here, and part of the emphasis on alternative energy is really commentary on the author's part. I don't think it is the most important takeaway from the article. The key thing to keep in mind is that their goal is to let other producers exit the market.
-
For one, S.A. was burned before by supporting prices and cutting production when other countries did not. In the end, if S.A. cuts production from S2 to S1, and prices go up from P1 to P2, they are probably still going to be making the same amount of revenue but lose market share. S.A. has already said they can increase production by another million barrels. They probably will to make up for lost revenues.
Exactly. Here is more commentary:
In this highly competitive environment, trying to effect a price increase by a unilateral cut in output would be commercial suicide, because your market share would be gobbled up by a competitor instantly. What about a coordinated output cut by OPEC? Glancing back at Figure 2, operating a cartel that does not include two of the top three oil producers (the United States and Russia), and that includes geo-strategic rivals (Saudi Arabia and Iran), is almost as improbable as some of the conspiracy theories currently circulating.If any of the above sounds familiar, it should – Al-Naimi has been repeating it for about 18 months, which makes analysts' affinity for conspiracy theories even more baffling. The best explanation that one can conjure up for this wholesale rejection of transparent Econ 101 principles is that those suffering from low oil prices may be trying to force Saudi Arabia into some sort of commercial error by creating public pressure. In particular, a lot of U.S. shale oil producers are going bankrupt, while Iraq will have great difficulty in attracting oil investors if prices are low.
Fortunately for Saudi Arabia, Al-Naimi seems to be indifferent to these long-shot lobbying efforts. And as oil investment collapses, there are good reasons to expect modest increases in oil prices in the next two years. Until then, Saudi Arabia looks likely to sustain the unique feat of being blamed for high (in 2011) and low (in 2015) oil prices despite barely changing its output – a contortion even a conspiracy theorist would be proud of.
-
I don't understand what that has to do with Saudi Arabia's stance on production levels. But since you want to change the topic, yes, that is what made me invest in SUNE. ::)
-
How is rational the idea of losing something like $5 a barrel or $50 million a day for simply disagreeing to freeze your production for 6 months at its highest level in years or near max capacity?
No, my religious enemy is trying to increase its production by 500,000 barrels a day, if they are lucky, so we will do all we can to make sure we all lose $100's of millions a day on 50 million barrels a day of production. That has to be the summum in intelligence.
Cardboard
I don't think you understand the market. Ali Al-Naimi knows what he is doing. Their stance is perfectly rational, and justified by both theory and experience.
For those interested, here is a look into Mr. Al-Naimi:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/saudi-arabia-s-plan-to-extend-the-age-of-oil
-
There may be some disagreement going on between Ali Al-Naimi and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. That said, Saudi Arabia's stance is perfectly rational.
-
Surprising. Tad is pretty young by BRK standards no? I still don't think Jain will inherit the Iron Throne, I doubt a nearly 70 year old Indian guy is moving to Nebraska.
-
Was it not supposed to go kaput? Iran didn't even come to the meeting...
-
Hahaha. To think this company was the object of some serious hero-worship by forum members not too long back. ;D
-
I would urge him to call up the types of industries he is interested in working for and offer to work for free. Gets experience and the company doesn't have any cost.
-
I don't think you understand the issue. Despite my explanation, it does not seem you want to understand it either, so I rest my case.
-
Are you guaranteeing a return over 8-9% with your picks?
I don't believe anybody is guaranteeing any type of return.
-
the point is that 8-9% is a mediocre rate of return to target for an investment.
BRK and KO are "equity bonds" and should be compared to bonds. Not speculative stocks.
Most investors should not expect returns higher than 9% with current interest rates.
Are you/other investors here running insurance firms?
-
I think one big mistake is this tendency to invest in poorly returning stocks. Good example is BRK.B. Even the bulls on BRK say they expect a 8-9% return, which is a really anemic bull case IMO. Could say the same things about IBM or KO. I think to actively invest, you really need to be setting your sights a lot higher.
(1) Because 8-9% is too low for the effort; OR (2) 8-9% is too low to compensate for mistakes? That is, the 9% bull case can't compensate for a mistake elsewhere so you'll end up lower?
What's the effort?
I don't know what StevieV means regarding effort, (he could mean the effort of actively managing money), but the point is that 8-9% is a mediocre rate of return to target for an investment.
-
I think one big mistake is this tendency to invest in poorly returning stocks. Good example is BRK.B. Even the bulls on BRK say they expect a 8-9% return, which is a really anemic bull case IMO. Could say the same things about IBM or KO. I think to actively invest, you really need to be setting your sights a lot higher.
(1) Because 8-9% is too low for the effort; OR (2) 8-9% is too low to compensate for mistakes? That is, the 9% bull case can't compensate for a mistake elsewhere so you'll end up lower?
I was thinking the former, but I think you bring up a good point with the latter.
-
Nobody is dividing the issue, the issues are literally separate. These are all separate sanction regimes with different enforcing parties. The nuclear sanctions are enforced by the UNSC, while the US has other unilateral sanctions. Think about who is in the UNSC, some countries see Iran as an adversary (like the US and UK), while others see Iran as a friendly partner (China and Russia), with Germany having economic interests there. To get all of these countries on board for a nuclear agreement, the focus will naturally be narrowed to issues all 5+1 nations want to enforce. Why would Russia and China care about enforcing American sanctions? It doesn't make any sense.
Aside from this, the US continues to enforce other sanctions against Iran's missile program.
-
No, that is incorrect. The delivery system is a separate issue that has no association with the nuclear deal and is dealt with by a separate sanction regime enforced by different parties. Obama has pursued sanctions in order to limit Iran's delivery capability along with restricting the nuclear program through the JCPOA. The idea that the enemies of the US are now suddenly able to take advantage of the US is a myth. Indeed, where was Bush when NK was developing nuclear weapons?
-
Obama was all about "reconciliation" or what he perceived as necessary after the Bush years and honestly he has been abused by more than one country in his dealings. Think about Iran with their missile tests and then saying: "It is not in the nuclear agreement." Or Russia always poking at the U.S.
Except Obama is right, the missile issue is a separate one from the nuclear agreement. You conveniently also forget that Russia also used to poke the US regularly during Bush's tenure. Best example is them obliterating US ally Georgia and GWB couldn't do anything. This narrative about other countries taking advantage of Obama's US is a joke.
-
I think one big mistake is this tendency to invest in poorly returning stocks. Good example is BRK.B. Even the bulls on BRK say they expect a 8-9% return, which is a really anemic bull case IMO. Could say the same things about IBM or KO. I think to actively invest, you really need to be setting your sights a lot higher.
-
Does anyone else besides me start losing interest in your investments when there are 2 up weeks in a row in the market. there has to be a name for a disorder like that but I'm not sure what it is.
In fact there is a name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster
-
Sold GNCMA, should have sold earlier, don't want to hold this stock while EBITDA is flat/slightly lower.
Timing fail.
-
Sold GNCMA, should have sold earlier, don't want to hold this stock while EBITDA is flat/slightly lower.
-
Selling BRK.B today. Will keep 1 share just for the annual meetings.
did you replace w/ cash? Or another stock. if so, which?
curious on why you held pre-annual report and are selling now? price / value seems to have not changed much.
Nothing has changed, but while BRK is still undervalued, the upside is not so great. I'm replacing with PAGP and OKE.
President Obama Weighs His Economic Legacy - By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
in General Discussion
Posted
Maybe what's best for America isn't what's best for Israel or our "allies"? Perhaps Obama recognizes that.