no_free_lunch

MHK - US based flooring company. Not without some issues and housing could be a small headwind but at 7.5x earnings a lot is priced in. I could be wrong but I don't see US housing construction falling off a cliff, it seems somehow they will continue to build.

Aws, I see your point but I don't think narratives matter. To countries outside of Europe, why would they care, they don't. They just want cheap food. They will continue to transact with whoever can get them the best price. If they don't care then we shouldn't care about these countries either. Clearly not our allies. Let's just sell our food for max dollar and make the best of this messed up situation.

SU.to, I would list my reasons but all very similar to what Viking just said. I will just add that they are buying back shares and increasing production. Perhaps not the same quality as CNQ but still solid management. Trading around a PE of 5 for the year, based on analyst estimates.

I remember a time in Canada, just a few months ago, where donations to a given entity were outlawed. Donations could result in termination of your bank account and loss of access (temporarily) to your finances. As rare or as unbelievable as that may sound it did happen. So right there is a case where having some crypto would have been handy. As the governments start to crack down on cash transactions the utility becomes more valuable. Again, I 100% agree that it should not be valued anywhere close to where it is. I suspect bitcoin should be a lot closer to $100 than $100k. I am just making the point that there is some utility there, so not an actual ponzi scheme in the true sense of the word.

SD, you could apply the same rationale to the casino, lottery tickets, even a true ponzi scheme. If I knew a young person looking for that multi-bagger I would tell them to put together a portfolio of a few small/micro cap stocks where they actually know the company. Crypto is fine to put in maybe 3-5k for someone starting out, something that won't hit them but for someone to put multiple years of savings in, it can just wreck their life and what is the reasoning to believe it goes up?

I think there are 2 elements to crypto. There is the utility side, money transfer and payments if nothing else which is real. The other side is the ability to safely store your assets without government stealing it, sort of a gold alternative. The two tie together. The more it's used, the easier and safer it is to justify as a store of value. That said, who knows what the real value should be. Should bitcoin be $100 or $100k, I really have no idea. I think of the value of a given coin as being: the float (the amount of some crypto readily available) divided by the transfers that happen over some period. The more transfers relative to the float size the more valuable it should be, right? I don't know how to get from there to an actual number but I don't think that number is 0 for something like bitcoin or monero. Crypto has a utility so is not a total scam but the valuations are difficult to justify.

It is trading today at a 4% premium. Long term it has traded between -14 and +35 to NAV. Ideally you wait to a bit closer to NAV. I wouldn't count on a discount, however if it happens management may buy back shares. They value edge-point using some independent firm, which whatever, but the valuation is reasonable. It's currently valued at $245 million, and is paying around an 8% yield, $5m a quarter, based on past few years dividends. It's currently at the same valuation from about 4 years ago so I don't feel they are aggressive on it. It should be noted that Edgepoint has been a slam dunk, up something like 100 fold over the past 15 years. This is not a perfect investment by any means but it's a way for me to park a little capital and it will not follow the market perfectly, for better or worse. To me it's a diversifier.

To get in the specifics of the poll and just based on the terse article I saw, I question whether it's the same as Ukraine Russia. The poll was around how America would respond to a pre-emptive attack on a nuclear aircraft carrier. Those things have 5000+ personnel. It would be the equivalent of a pearl harbor. Not the same as Ukraine siding closer to NATO at all, in my opinion.

I am throwing this in general discussion as it's a closed end fund as opposed to a specific stock. The funds performance has been excellent and the holdings are very aligned with members on this site. Their top 10 holdings include dollar tree, berry global, auto canada, onex, and various other holdings you hear in value circles. You can have a look at their current portfolio at this link: https://cymbria.com/portfolio/ I have started a position and am just posting to get others thoughts.

I think you seriously underestimate the hurdle to use nuclear weapons. To try to compare some street survey to what a super-power will do is just silly.

To go back to the original question of the thread, I would not be surprised if inflation has peaked and if so, the stock market decline may peak over the next 3-6 months before receding to more typical 3-4% levels. I wouldn't be surprised to see stocks drop substantially further in that interval but after that, they probably stabilize and move up. I keep doing these litmus tests where I look at various companies and think whether it's reasonable for them to get 10%+ revenue increase needed to justify inlation. A lot of cases it seems a stretch to expect that kind of revenue bump. I can do the same experiment with friends jobs, again not many are getting double digit raises. Then factor in the colossal deflation from stock / crypto crashes, some future deflation from real estate cooling, it's tougher and tougher to see it going on. Perhaps the energy prices stabilize, the price increases ripple through the system (in smaller and smaller increments as you get further from oil usage) and things just stabilize. We are all a little poorer but inflation then returns to more normal levels.

Why make it complicated right? Nice picks. I went the other way from world class asset and bought some SNC.to. I just couldn't turn it up, too much of a bargain.

I appreciate the feedback on the banks. I'm not worried about where they go in the short-term, who knows that, but as long as it's reasonable for them to profit in a sustained 7-10% inflation environment with rising yields. Better even if they can somehow grow at / beyond the rake.

These are some good picks but with the financials, how do you get comfortable with them in an inflationary environment? Or maybe you don't see inflation as persisting? I just ask as I have a couple bank stocks on my radar as well but am not sure how well they do given it seems they will lose against inflation.

Bought a medium position in gold miner BTO.TO. The stock is down almost 50% from last year and now trades 10-12x earnings and pays a 4% dividend. It is a lower cost producer and has a conservative balance sheet. Also one of the few gold miners I have found that has actually grown since the 2007-2008 peak.

Anything in particular you want to draw out from the talk? I just don't have the hour to watch it myself but no doubt he is a legend and worth hearing.

The thing that scares me about bitcoin is that transaction fees are not really increasing. They are actually lower today than they were back during the first bubble in 2017/18. In 2017 they were bouncing between $2-4 much of the time, with some spikes over $10. Today, the average transaction fee is listed as $1.72. I would expect transactions fees to steadily grind up if demand was increasing. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction To me it looks like people aren't really needing bitcoin that much. Perhaps with all the crypto out there, there are just too many other options. No real opinion on bitcoin, it's a neat idea and has certainly done well but trying to ascribe a value to it is impossible, imo.

JBHT - Trucking company with an edge. Their main business is intermodal, which means they shuttle containers to rail yards and move them by rail most of the way. Given rail is much cheaper energy wise they are in a strong position right now. Also have logistics business which is low capital. Excellent long term track record. There is a lot to like here. I may start a post on them later. Currently trading for around 18x PE so not crazy cheap but it has often traded 25-30x (just approximating it). It has historically grown mid double digits so your are getting close to the elusive 1 PEG. If anyone hates them speak up.

I don't have a source handy but I have heard similar numbers. It is possible. 100k troops in Donbass a year since 2014 when the war started, so 8 years worth. I don't think there is a problem with equipping these types of numbers with basic infantry equipment. It's more about having the heavy equipment than number of men, from what I can tell. Tanks, drones, artillery, aircraft. This in true in particular in the open areas. So it will really come down to the west supplying the equipment. There is no doubt they have the manpower to use it.

I guess it is 10%. I was including Cash + Receivables.

Small position in META. Seems too cheap. 12 PE and 15% of the market cap in cash. Not without risks of course but at these prices I'm willing to roll the dice.

I wonder which country Russia will attack next. It seems the only thing Russia is capable of is to attack smaller neighbor countries and the domestic issues are bound to resurface as this invasion has not resolved the underlying cluster fuck that is the Russian economy.

I would sure think so but the reality it just hasn't happened yet despite making a lot of sense for years. I know in my case, despite having a job that is very easy to do remotely, there are still requirements about in office work that make moving to a small town not practical. I think too, that kind of lifestyle is a huge change and while there will be some who will go for it, most prefer the amenities of the larger centers. Regarding the post in general, I think it is indeed a huge problem. However, there are mitigating factors as well. Countries such as the US and Canada are going to do better than others due to the larger amount of immigration we have. There is also going to be a shift in retirement age to later, there will just have to be. I don't know exactly how that all plays out but the market will find a way to push aging workers back in. Could be via inflation hitting the value of government benefits, stock / real estate crash hurting those who have saved, pension defaults, there are many possibilities. At any rate, in this day and age, while 65 is a great retirement age and is something I aspire to (or earlier), I also know people who have worked to 80. With white collar work retiring at 65 doesn't make as much as sense as it used to. Even less so if there is a shortage of workers.

There are two sets of rules, I don't think it's even debatable anymore. Just a question of who the elites are. I think you saw the curtain fall down during COVID when regular people were in lock down and private jets were still moving around the planet shuttling the ultra wealthy as they saw fit. I believe that the bailouts in 2008 were also a blatant attempt to back up certain wealthy elites. Regular Joe was told to absorb 50% cuts to their home equity, small business went bankrupt, blue/white collar lost jobs but bank shareholders were mostly made whole. Yes, I realize it is more complicated and JPM was forced to take the money, etc but all in all this was clearly done to bail out rich and dumb share-holders. There were ways for the government to keep the banks alive while also wiping out the shareholders as was deserved. All you can do is try to stay one step ahead of it with your trading but when you are up against insiders who control governments it feels it's only a matter of time before you lose out.

I am certainly no military expert but I think if the NATO countries can supply the arms then Ukraine can push them back, at least to pre-invasion borders. So Russia would still control Crimea and the far eastern provinces. It seems that NATO can produce technologically superior weapons. This should help to offset the manpower advantage Russia has. As far as losses, Russia has a much larger base but this is an existential threat to Ukraine and just a resource grab for Russia. It seems Ukraine is more willing to sacrifice in this holy war and in contrast it seems by sacrificing their people Russia risks revolution. Ultimately I am counting on the war just not being worth the huge economic cost for Russia . NATO is so much richer than Russia, somewhere around 20 times the GDP. The longer they draw this war out the more it costs Russia economically while for NATO they can just eat it. If NATO can turn this into an economic war (hint: they have), it's Russia's to lose.