wachtwoord

Dutch tender announced C$1.40 .. C$1.60 for up to C$20M. Already reported in November (but not posted here so I post it for those that missed it).

Likely BOL.PA https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/bollore-(bol-pa)/110/

Yeah, I think the people that have this view are basically misunderstanding five things: [*]Exponential growth [*]It takes weeks between infection and hospitalization and death [*]Hospitals are not infinitely expandable--if enough people come in, hospitals run out of resources [*]If you're in the ICU with this, you are likely in there for weeks [*]That without ventilators, the death rate increases dramatically Everyone I've seen who's taken a "there's no problem" position seems to have basically missed at least one of these points. In that post, he's certainly completely misunderstanding points 1 and 2. He'll probably miss points 3, 4, and 5, but hasn't got to that point yet, because he's so busy missing 1 and 2. Well that really depends.I the grand scheme of things there isn't a real problem even with maximum death toll due to overextended hospitals. Countries will recover quite fast (<year) and in fact will be economically healthier with a lower proportion of the population in the higher age brackets. There's only a problem in the ethical/sociological sense.

Thanks everyone for contributing to this thread. I learned a lot and find it facinating how (unnecessarily?) complex they managed to make a system for trading and holding securities.

@Greg: Firstly, you probably know that on the politics discussion I'm much closer to agreeing with you than Writser. Sadly, in the world that we live in with large and powerful nation states politics and investments are connected unseperably, at least on a macro level. However, that doesn't stop me from agreeing with him here. RNO is almost certainly lying and thus spreading misinformation (in this case claiming timing the market is possible in a repeated fashion). This is damaging: at least it reduces the signal to noise ratio for everyone and at worst some (naive, young, starting out investors) might be pursuaded by it. There's enough misinformation in general society, let's not accept it in a place we have control over. Outlandish claims need proof. evidence or at least some logical explanation to be made believable or need to be dismissed If it's about the way he communicates it you might (probably) have a point. Objectively thepupil is more constructive and less aggressive in his wording. However, 1. I personally found Writser's wording amusing (perhaps a flaw of mine) and 2. you yourself are no stranger to (overly) aggresive wording of matters ;)

Hahaha this thread delivers! Thanks for the laugh Writser ;D I have to say I'm with Writser and thepupil on this one. @Greg: what do you think is the added benefit of allowing people to spreas uncontested bullshit on the forum? (keyword being uncontested) It's optimal to allow the flow of information to be as free as possible but that must include rebuttals! [at the same time this is also why how the silly concept of "fake news" is being handled through censorship so bad .... just rebute (if you can ;))]

I don't really understand this argument and I think its wrong. I've heard both Buffett and Graham argue the exact opposite repeatedly. As bond yields rise, earnings mulitples contract (and earnings yields rise) and current stock prices go down which increases future returns but depresses current returns. On the other hand when bond yields go up, earning yields go up and stock prices go up which improves returns looking backwards (from historical time point to present) but depresses returns looking forwards (from present to future time point). This makes sense as its the bond yield which competes with stocks. Higher bond yields tend to attract people away from stocks and lower bond yields tend to push people towards stocks. Incidentally this does not really contradict the return premium argument since return premiums are about future stock returns and not current ones. A higher bond yield means a greater required future return on stocks which means stock prices now must be lower. Similarly a lower bond yield means a lower required future return on stocks which means stock price now must be higher. Lower bond yields therefore should have led to higher stock prices in Europe. Quite. One other thing I suspect is true (but haven’t checked the stats) is that Europe has relied almost entirely on monetary stimulus whereas the US has applied both monetary and fiscal. The latter boosts the economy and profits growth, which are lacking in Europe. I suspect the time to buy Europe is when this changes. LOL. That will be after the demise of the EU then. Fiscally it will get worse before it gets better in Europe. Socialism is in a strong upwards trend.

Somewhat unrelated, one of the benefits of having a surveillance state is that criminals are more hesitant to commit crime. When I went back a couple years ago, people mentioned that robberies and theft have gone down quite a bit since they installed cameras everywhere. Of course, the US news sources will only report the emergence of a police state and not the fact that most everyday citizens enjoy the fact that they can catch child abductors and robbers rather quickly. Not that I would want to live there, but there is a some benefits to having a police state. Crime by non-state aligned actors may go down. That doesn't compensate for the uptake in state-aligned crime however (which can no longer officially may be called crime).

Too much competition in lefty land.

Do you have Chinese nationality? Any way to get rid of it? :/

Well the fact that ZH actually quotes and links their articles instead of rehash or copy without proper sourcing makes it better than CNN, NYT, WSJ, FOX et al. I'm not saying ZH is amazing, in fact I agree with most of your criticisms of ZH. Still, all is relative and everything else is worse. Not many real journalists around nowadays. I mean there's wikileaks but their editor's in chief is getting tortured to death for his troubles and it doesn't publish day-to-day news. It seems to always come back to this in a world of terrible quality. The same as with the whole Trump debate, I dislike Trump, but still consider him the best US president since Ronald Reagan. All the others were just that much worse. I think no-free-lunch summarized nicely how ZH can be useful. Edit: +1 to rkbabang above. Agree with that word for word.

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age? I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so. It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies. Propaganda - truth is a spectrum. ZH is much less propaganda than any western (US or European) mainstream news outlet I've ever come across. If (!) there's Russians behind ZH there's Russians behind ZH big deal. There are definitely groups of people behind mainstream western news outlets whose interests are not alligned with mine (or the truth).

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age? I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

Didn't Zerohedge just get banned from Twitter for spreading false info about this? Twitter is a censor hell, just like Facebook. They've become too big and governments use them like they use their other news outlets: propaganda and controlling their narrative of the truth. Luckily you can still visit websites directly: www.zerohedge.com If that ever gets stopped (there are precedents in the western world), there's always the old trusty VPN solution.

My teenager told that among their circles finding a date through tinder implies that you are not smart enough to find one in person. That felt me as a warning flag for the future of the online dating industry, and I sold my MTCH stock while doing the year end re-balancing. Tinder is not for online dating but for online fling finding matchup (online casual sex?). Other solutions exist for finding relationships. The latter is a huge grow market in my opinion. Especially knowing how socially unconnected and busy people are these days (if this doesn't materialize birth numbers will go the way of Japan). Similarly, I expect solutions for finding friendships to appear and become popular (and no, before anyone says, Facebook is not for finding friends ...).

I don't necessarily disagree but, if you have time, can you provide evidence backing this up? Proof (I assume you mean the empirical kind) for something such as that will always be indirect at best since it's impossible to isolate the variable under study. An example of indirect evidence of what he's saying is in fact the lackluster return of the index discussed in this thread (but it can never be proof as so many other factors are present and can't be controlled pr compensated for). The reason why his statement is obviously true is simple logic. However I won't delve into that as not to derail the thread into a political one.

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model. You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers. This revenue model has been around for ages. Stadia Pro does not allow to play "any game on their servers". It allows you to play a selection of games. Xbox Games With Gold, Xbox Game Pass, Playstation Now, EA Access all offer the same. With differing selection of games of course. I’ve never used Stadia or any of these, but I assumed any game they have a license for you can play. Can you also install games you own on the cloud? It would make sense. Idk maybe this won’t take off I’m mainly thinking out loud on this thread, but at some point if these becomes the dominant way to play video games, it seems to me to be a way to eat into margins. I don’t think stadia stealing share is my main issue as I assume all the video game makers see what Netflix is doing to traditional media companies, but being forced to adopt this buffet style subscription model, would be problematic. Stadia forces you to buy games at retail on top of the $20 monthly fee to be able to play games. They have announced a free model (so no $20 a month, but you still need to buy games at retail) at the cost of degraded performance. There's a Stadia competitor (forgot the name) with only a monthly fee but their game selection is small and appearently they are technically inferior (I watched a review a month or so ago, the above is the opinion of the reviewer). Until this all goes to a Netflix model (can that be done profitably?) I don't see Stadia and competitors taking huge market share (and of course latency problems must be solved or at least improved upon).

Does this pose the risk of an (unfairly/unsafely) high representation in worldwide index funds or will the relatively large float stop that from happening? I mean, at their current prposed valuation, in my opinion the regulatory risks (by direct confiscation, high taxation, other arbitrary regulation or running the business not in the interest of minority shareholders) are not properly discounted.

And archive.org, and if you add: javascript:location.href='http://web.archive.org/save/'+location.href as a bookmark, you can add archive any page for future viewing through archive.org (of course this means doing so before seekingalpha restricts the pro post, which takes a few weeks I think?)

SD you're saying that the price will be higher if the accessible supply is lower. That is true, but how is that an impairment? I wish all my investment were impaired in that fashion! It's like a company buying back shares without the associated cost. Also 21M is not a magical number. It's not even the actual number as the actual number is 2100 trillion units. Arbitrarily 100M of these units is known as a Bitcoin.

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins? No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record. The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin. SD How is that an impairment? The total outstanding units is completely arbitrary. If some people lose their bearer shares to some company, how this impair anyone but the people lising the bearer shares?

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins? Indeed. Connecting blockchain data to physical assets is a silly notion anyway. Similarly, people that think their tokens are backed by some physical asset are going to wake up to some bad surprise at some point in the future. What you can do is prove that certain data existed at a certain point in time. For example show that some document or contract was signed at some point in time, by putting the hash of the document in the blockchain (the Bitcoin one preferably if you desire strong evidence).

@TwoCitiesCapital: The payment system is not the innovation here. The trustless settlement system is the innovation. The payment system is purposefully unscalable and relatively slow because security, immutability, censorship-resistance and distribution are the key value proposition of Bitcoin. This won't change, no matter how much you polish the payment system. It's the fundamental truth. You also can't compare the fees to credit cards or the traditional banking system because those transactions are reversable. In fact users of those system see the reversability as a feature while in Bitcoin non-reversability is the feature. Very different systems that don't directly compete with each other. @SD: the second "type of crypto" you mention is not a cryptocurrency at all and nothing new (but we me mostly seem to agree on this one)

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics). It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

Excuse me but I'm not a money launderer and I don't want central banks to exist much less be involved in things. Central banks are anti free-market by definition.