bizaro86

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...

I used to use Google Scholar all the time, but found that it almost always ended up serving mostly results that were behind expensive paywalls, so I generally stopped bothering. Maybe that has improved

Creating value doesn't necessarily seem to be their MO here.

out of the money LEAPs on FB and NXPI

This kind of got lost in the news about the repurchases. Does anyone know how long it takes before the S&P recalculates the free float shares and increases BRK weighting in the index?

No worries at all. I find this news quite exciting (both as a Berkshire-follower and for personal financial reasons) so I may not have expressed myself very well initially. That seems especially likely given that two respected members interpreted it the same way, so obviously I wasn't clear.

I haven't looked recently, but the last time I checked the installment receipts were trading at a decent discount to the shares, especially given the higher yield until the deal closes.

Hmm... I don't think I disagree with you at all, or that an assumption that I have not valued Berkshire recently is valid. My very recent purchase on a position in in-the-money leaps is one example of that. As a matter of fact, my exposure to Berkshire has tripled in the last month, so my timing appears to be fine. As to valuation, I agree that this isn't the same as saying it's worth 1.3x, and that was my point. If he says 1.3x or 1.4 or 1.5, then the stock will immediately trade up to that number limiting buybacks. If he just says "when it's undervalued" they can buy back at 1.35x or 1.62x or whatever, and actually use it as an opportunity to deploy some cash. By giving the market less information about their intentions they are likely able to buy back more stock. I certainly wasn't saying intrinsic value is 1.3x book, and honestly don't see how my comment could have been interpreted that way.

I would guess they don't change the number to 1.3 because then the stock will automatically trade above that number. This sounds to me like they are planning to do a buyback and want to actually be able to do so without driving up the price.

If she "gets" compound interest, the eyes wide at 12% returns moment is a good time to slide in "imagine how bad it is to pay 19%" for credit card debt. If you can get someone the motivation to save a reasonable percentage of their income at a young age, that alone will put them way ahead.

Think about it from his perspective. He probably got tons of extra publicity/client funds/higher fees from being the guy with the $2000 book. It could have been him bidding up the prices and it likely would have been a good investment. Maybe he could make $1MM by offering reprints, but that pales in comparison the value of the aura he's created.

I'm definitely interested in being the best I can be at my chosen activities. Happily, nothing that I spend time on is likely to end up with me being famous, even if I were to be very very good at it. For the board, that includes investing. It seems to me that even if I could generate returns similar to WEBs partnership years for the rest of my life, and while my IBKR balance would be really high, I don't see how that would result in being famous. Unless you started giving interviews or managing public money as long as you stayed below 5% holdings you could stay anonymous.