bizaro86

This is a net-negative solution. Take student loans. Yes you solve the problems of recent graduates with excessive debt relative to their earning potential. You also fvck over a lot of society because you have people who are capable of performing high-skill labor who will never be able to, because they do not have 250K liquid cash to pay for university. I suspect he means (and if so I agree) that the cost of tuition would come way down in the absence of government intervention in student loans. Interestingly, in Canada you can get a six figure loan to go to med school from a private institution that isn't guaranteed by anyone other than the student. I couldn't believe it, but a med student applied to rent a condo I own. I asked him about source of funds, and he showed me his loan documentation, and did a three way call with the branch (which I dialed). Basically, they were willing to loan him the money because the credit risk is good that he'll be able to pay it back. In a "no gov't backed student loans" scenario, the market would offer loans to some occupations, and the cost of education would likely decline as institutions are no longer able to fund professors who don't want to teach with student funds. I think it'd probably increase the efficiency of the economy, because you'd get more people taking actually useful degrees and people who end up in jobs that don't really need one wouldn't take one.

FGE.DB.A

The risk with Parq is ironically that they succumb to gamblers ruin and keep putting in a little more money to try and salvage the investment, and end up losing everything on it.

Did you mean to say you bought 100 shares? Because one option contract is for 100 shares, so if you just bought one your call isn't really covered.

Most jobs that family and friends could get for you are not professional jobs. Sure, family and friends can get you a minimum-wage-plus job, but jobs like that are not commensurate with the education level of a large swath of immigrants. I hired work out to an engineering firm here in Calgary, and there was a group there almost entirely comprised of people with the same last name, from the same part of India. The first one who got hired got jobs for a variety of extended relations. It probably helped that they all had excellent English and great technical skills... I suspect that combination would have set them up for success anyway, but having a good place to land probably sped up the transition.

I've only had one 10 bagger in my investing career, and it came from Barron's, so I have a soft spot for them. You can't get the print edition in Canada, which makes me sad. I've tried repeated to subscribe and nobody ever gets back to me. It isnt sold anywhere in Calgary either. I read it whenever I'm in the US. I should probably just cave and get the digital version...

Some of their assets might be cyclicals at peak earnings. I haven't followed this closely, but their 50% interest in wood river is a big heavy oil refinery in Illinois. It is making money on the spread between canadian heavy (WCS) and WTI. That spread has been at historical highs due to pipeline and rail constraints. While transmountain may or may not get built, the line 3 expansion probably will, and rail is ramping up. A lower differential will lower their profits at wood river. I'm not sure how big a piece of their business refining is anymore, but thought I'd mention that.

Too bad they're taking shares here.

Did they actually admit guilt? That would surprise me, and isn't implied by them agreeing to pay.

Real estate in AB is cheap on basically every basis compared to the rest of Canada. It has poor momentum/sentiment though, which is why I doubted the anecdote about a quick high-price sale was from here. I do think there are bargains, especially compared to the rest of Canada. I have a friend selling a four plex that has actual positive cash flow at in place rents, which isn't typical for Canadian RE, imo.

If nuclear power was going to get AB oilsands producers access to tidewater, they would do it. But we've already planned a coal shut down and put on the first carbon price in Canada, and none of that made any difference. The appetite in AB for more expensive changes to placate people whose stated objective is the end of our economy is pretty low. No new freshwater licenses are being given out for the athabasca river. New projects have to use brackish water from underground. While this would be out of my technical element, I think that would be unsuitable for a nuclear plant without significant (expensive and energy intensive) treatment.

Just curious here. I imagine that what you say would be true in say British Columbia. But power generation is a provincial matter. So the BC folks wouldn't have much to say about that. Is there such a big contingent of green crazies in Alberta that they would be able to derail a power project? Albertans certainly don't seem to have much of an issue with burning huge amounts of nat gas. I think it would be an issue in the public comment section of the EIA for two reasons. The "nuclear oh-nos" and the need for large amounts of water for cooling reasons. Water is already a sensitive issue in the area. However, it is also not economic, or at least it wasn't when the oilsands producer I worked for studied it. The issue is that nuclear power plants are really big. They generate a lot of steam very effectively, which is great. However, the steam is all centralized in one large place. Transporting steam by pipeline is really expensive. The pipelines have to be above ground, and have to be insulated. They cost a fortune. The longer the pipelines are, the more expensive they get, but they also get less effective. The steam loses heat (even with the expensive above ground insulated pipelines), so some of the steam condenses to water and can't be used to heat up the oil. So a big centralized nuclear plant isn't a great option. There are a variety of people looking at small scale nuclear reactors for oilsands use, but as far as I know nobody has come up with one that is credible. Part of the problem is probably credibility. If you owned shares in an oilsands company that said they were going to build a nuclear steam plant in Ft Mac with no govt cost guarantees, would you be excited or concerned about cost overruns?

I've done an EIA for a thermal oil sands project. There is no way a nuclear powered option could get regulatory approval. While it would be zero greenhouse gas emissions, the crap storm from the green lobby would make transmountain look like a polite debate between old church ladies.

Any thoughts on a paired trade--long E and short Common? Right now the E is trading at par with the Common assuming conversion. This seems to assume there is zero chance of the E getting paid cash--even partially. And in Jim's "haircut" scenario the haircut would have to do less damage than a conversion or why would the E's vote in favour? The only risk I can see is that the company comes into some good luck with asset sales and maybe strong results from Delonex and the Common soars. At the same time the company has enough new liquidity to pay the E in cash. E's would get $25, but the loss on the short side of the trade would be much higher. I think the risk would be that in an extension scenario that is a haircut as suggested, the common could rally as it would avoid dilution in the near term at least and the upside on the DC.PR.E would be limited. I think you are right that there are other risks. I am still kicking myself for not shorting the E at $24 in July before the Q2 release when the Common was around $1.50. That was a "Wiley Coyote" moment--the E holders had yet to look down and see how much they would lose on conversion at $2! It was also a one-way bet since it couldn't go up, only down. I tried to short the E then and couldn't find borrow.

Real estate is a weird mash-up of mostly local factors, with some national ones mixed in. I'm pretty sure that anecdote isn't from Calgary, for example. I think you had mentioned once you're in Quebec? Local factors (local economy, net-migration, investment demand, animal spirits, etc) can combine with national factors (interest rates, mortgage policy changes). Interestingly, in Calgary the local economy has been weak for some time, combined with federal tightening which have both hurt local real estate. Now the local economy has green shoots from $65-70 WTI, but real estate isn't improving much if at all. Part of that is foreclosures from a year or two ago finally hitting the market and part of it is sentiment hasn't turned yet. I'd be a buyer in size right now except for concern that a national price decline will hit here in the form of reduced buyer sentiment and tighter lending standards. Price declines have finally caught up with rent declines in my areas.

I do think implicit biases are real though. I have an example on the male/female side of things. I run two small airbnb listings in a major city. One is in my wife's name, and one is in my name. The photos, title, description, cancellation policy are all the same. I run customer service for both, using mostly pre-populated emails I've designed. (Directions from the train station, no you can't check-in at 4 AM, etc). The check-in, cleaning, etc, is all provided by the exact same people. The only difference is that her listing has a photo of her and her name, and mine has a photo of me and my name. We're both white, with "average white America" first names, and the same age. Her listing books first for the same dates more than 90% of the time. Her guest feedback is also better. There doesn't appear to be a difference in the preference between male and female travellers, and both are "whole place" listings, and the descriptions are clear the properties are used for transient rentals 100% of the time.

I did the same one as you. The test is so flawed. Half the time I forgot which hand was for which category. So what they're assigning a bias towards ("Office" = "Paul"), was nothing more than forgetting which hand was for which category. Forgetting which is which is the point of the test. I'm not saying its valid, but they're trying to find unconscious patterns. I have to admit I think it's pretty unlikely that I (mid thirties professional white male) have an unconscious bias toward thinking that family is men's work and career is women's work. Maybe I need therapy...

"Your data suggest a moderate automatic association for Male with Family and Female with Career." Interesting. I think of myself as a pretty unbiased person (as do most people, I'm sure).

The record of high profile managers who seek permanent capital after they get it isn't very inspiring. Buffett is the counter example, but more recent examples (Einhorn, Lampert) don't look so good. Personally, if he isn't 100% client focused after a very long stretch of underperformance, I would be pretty inclined to pull my money. YMMV.

I think more male elementary school teachers would be a great thing for society. Not because women are doing a bad job, but because it would provide more male role models for young boys. This is especially key for boys who are growing up without a father present. Unfortunately, educational outcomes tend to be worse for poorer students/those with less stable family situations, and I think that would help. Also, having male teachers early in life might help forestall the idea that school "is for girls." Academic success by males is declining in most fields, and I think more male teachers would help that issue as well.

You change tires for the winter? :o Yeah, I know my relatives do this in Lithuania where it is required. I think you're the first person I've heard to do this in US. I live in W. Canada, where this is pretty much a requirement for anyone who drives in the winter. I would have thought lots of places in the US would be similar (Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, Vermont, etc).

I would wonder how forthright the average female would be about talking to a male about their lingerie preferences. Maybe not a big deal, but worth considering...

I don't know anything about the source. But anyone smart enough to do that study probably understands the important difference between tax deferred and tax free. That implies to me the statement is intentional, and probably driven by bias of some kind.

Tesla bear put spread. Bought a 300 put, sold a 200. Expiry is Jan 2020, cost was $20. I think there is less than a 20% chance the Musk LBO goes through. If it does, this is a zero, but it's probably at least a double if it doesn't. The shares probably go back to 300 on a deal break, or much lower than that on a SEC investigation of Musk tweeting if he didn't have the $ lined up and said he did.

Does anyone think a raise is likely here? I would have thought the premium is enough to keep minorities happy, although I suppose $18 is well off the 52 week high here. I doubt Prem/management will feel like they need to raise, and I can't see another bidder coming in. I'm puzzled why the market is bidding this up past the purchase price...