KJP

Is that right? I took a quick look and it appears that total common shareholders' equity is about $1.42 billion, but they have $377 million in goodwill. (I'm taking these numbers from the balance sheet in 2025 AR.) So, about $1 billion in tangible book against about 100 million diluted shares = ~$10/share in tangible book value vs current share price of about $14/share.

Ziff Davis

Can you say a bit more about what you mean by this? Also, if you liked Blood Meridian I'd recommend Heart of Darkness if you haven't read it already. I believe Conrad in general and that book in particular significantly influenced McCarthy in both theme and prose style.

With the new Nolan movie coming up, I decided to re-read this (and The Iliad) too for the first time since high school. I realized that I had basically forgotten everything except Books 9-12. I enjoyed the re-read much more than I expected (and much more than The Iliad). What did you think of it?

Well, I did say "attempted"! I agree that finding an acceptable long-run result in a simplified 50+ year overlapping generations models isn't really responsive to the claim that the near to intermediate term ride may get very bumpy.

A few attempted rebuttals: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/02/is-there-an-aggregate-demand-problem-in-an-agi-world.html And a more detailed counterargument that predates the Citrini memo: https://aleximas.substack.com/p/will-advanced-ai-lead-to-negative Of course, it's hard to fit a full rebuttal into a tweet.

His scenario does includes this explanation: "Agents went looking for faster and cheaper options than cards. Most settled on using stablecoins via Solana or Ethereum L2s, where settlement was near-instant and the transaction cost was measured in fractions of a penny." This scenario seems to imply the elimination of the consumer credit function of cards and the conversion of all transactions to something debit-like using stablecoins. In that world, there is no AXP or Discovery. I have no comment on his scenario's likelihood or plausibility or whether different geographies might adopt something like it at different speeds. On the insurance point, I don't know how he's getting his numbers, but I assume he's relying on some data about how insurers price new business relative to existing business, which I further assume insurers base in part on estimated LTVs given churn rates, etc. As you suggest, those historical trends (and pricing disparities) presumably would no longer hold in a world of much higher churn, because there doesn't appear to be 15-20% available in the system for even constant AI-generated churn to wring out.

This is very intriguing. I'm often put off by the tediousness (e.g., Rendezvous with Rama) or the prose style of much sci-fi (Heinlein, LeGuin, Gibson), but I've heard others also say good things about Wolfe. I'm going to check out Book of the New Sun. My sci-fi recommendation would be Klara and the Sun by Ishiguro, though it's very soft sci-fi. @Valuebo -- it's not sci-fi, but based on what you mentioned, you may enjoy Heart of Darkness by Conrad. [EDIT: Another recommendation: Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers, which was adapted into the movie Stalker by Tarkovsky.] I'm currently (slowly) reading through Moby-Dick for the first time and reading Pynchon's latest book, Shadow Ticket. I've never really got Pynchon and this one is no different for me, so I can't recommend it. Some recent reads that I enjoyed: Disgrace by Coetzee Revolutionary Road by Yates Bright Lights, Big City by McInerney (the best of the limited amount of Brat Pack that I've read) Pnin by Nabokov Gilead by Robinson Parts of Invisible Man by Ellison, though it's so dense that I'm sure much of it went over my head.

I see four arguments in your response: 1. BTC should be analyzed as currency rather than a store of value because some people refer to it as a "cryptocurrency". Is this actually at all persuasive even to you in the face of an argument that it is a store of value? On its face a semantic straw man. 2. As a physical object, gold has a "tangible use" whereas BTC doesn't and never could. This is true. Gold has certain industrial uses and it has ornamental and aesthetic uses that have withstood the test of time. But are you claiming those uses support the current gold price and that it's use as a store of value (central bank reserves, etc.) are irrelevant? Or are you claiming that the store of value use is necessarily downstream of a pre-existing industrial/ornamental use, and that a different thing (tangible or intangible) could never become a store of value without first having tangible industrial and/or ornamental use? If that's the argument, why do you believe that to be true? 3. Gold has a long history and many people in many parts of the world have accepted it in exchange for real goods and services. While that statement is true, isn't it also true that the places you (as a US resident) actually shop at today for real goods and services do not accept gold? So, if acceptance as a medium of exchange were the relevant test, why isn't gold worthless? 4. You cannot assess BTC or gold's intrinsic value, so you're not going to play that game. This makes perfect sense to me and is the exact reason I do not and have never owned gold or BTC. And this seems to be your real reason. Everything else appears to be makeweight. The only thing I do not understand is your absolute confidence in the "ultimate outcome," given that we know that gold is still around and commands a significant price per ounce despite having the same IV issues.

@gfp is giving us a real-time test of this proposition. He has been right so far on this down leg. Why has his analysis to date not been sufficient to change your prior (at least slightly) on this question? If he continues to make correct calls on BTC via TA, will you change your mind?

Respectfully, I don't think this is responsive to @Milu's point, which was that no place where you actually shop accepts gold either. So, is gold worthless? By bringing in the concept of "currency" I believe you are creating a straw man -- my understanding is that BTC bulls see it as a type of long term store of value, like gold, rather than a everyday medium of exchange like the USD. I've never owned BTC or any other crypto (or gold for that matter). But I do not see how you or other others making similar comments have differentiated BTC from gold, other than gold's long history of use, which I agree is a significant distinction.

Thanks for the response.

I don't know if it was this thread or somewhere else, but I appreciated your point about the unusual price-supply dynamics of BTC and the relevance of charting to such an asset. I'm sure you've heard the claim that charting is easy after-the-fact but fake in real-time, so I also appreciate you sharing your thoughts in real time. What is the signal from the chart that the bottom leg on a bear flag is over and the probability is that the price will turn up?

Thanks for the heads up on this. Have you tried it yet?

I agree it's circular if past trade patterns continue.

Can they do it by swapping dollar-based holdings for the non-dollar based holdings of US persons, e.g., a UK holder of U.S. treasuries swaps assets with a U.S. holder of gilts? That would reduce the gross amount of foreign dollar-based holdings.

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting the wash sale rule applies when the initial sale resulting in a capital gain? If so, what taxing jurisdiction are you referring to?

For an overview of the history of the Abaxx story and the bull case, you can scroll through this twitter feed:

I agree on management, but I'm skeptical about the size of the current discount to book (and thus the degree of accretiveness of current buybacks). I assume your TBV calculation does not adjust for current market value of HTM securities or the market value of the loan book. The HTM adjustment would be about $20 million and the yield on the loan book is ~5.4% so not great either. If that deserves a bit of a discount too, that along with an HTM adjustment would eat up much of the discount to TBV. I confess, though, that I'm not sure how an acquiring bank would look at those issues, though I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least some impact on the TBV multiple paid. All that being said, I have my eye on it and if the recent pullback keeps going or if it drifts along at the current price as we get closer to the 3-year anniversary I may buy back in.

About 13%. Some good performers, but too much legacy dead weight (much of which is still around!) to do better. Historical 2024: 14% 2023: 29% 2022: -15% 2021: 11% 2020: 14% 2019: 31% 2018: 11% 2017: 10% 2016: 22%

Based on your allocation, I assume you're still quite bullish on SRBK. Do you think it's sold within a year or so of the 3-year anniversary? If so, at what multiple to TBV? I sold out a few months back and moved the proceeds to PFSB because of its better profitability, bigger discount to book, and buyback, but I think Orbach knows what he's doing, so I still have an eye on SRBK.

Miami International Holdings (MIAX) is a August IPO that you may want to add to your list. I'm not too familiar with it but I believe it's primarily focused on derivatives exchanges. Market cap is ~$4 billion.

A good recipe for bank profits. @MMM20's HIFS thesis in a nutshell.

The tariff case is, at least in the first instance, a statutory interpretation case, not a constitutional one in the way many think. Trump has identified language in a federal statute that he claims authorizes the tariffs. The Court will decide whether he is right about that statutory interpretation, So, the primary question isn't whether the Supreme Court will "defer" to Trump nor is it whether Article II authorizes the President to impose tariffs. Rather, it is whether, under the circumstances as they exist today, Congress has already given that authority to the Executive Branch via a statute. So, the tariff case is closer to Biden v. Nebraska than it might appear. A secondary question in the case, which will only arise if the Court concludes that Trump's statutory interpretation is correct, is whether the statute (as interpreted) unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the President. The non-delegation doctrine on which that question is based is quite controversial and has a checkered history. It's main modern proponents are actually conservatives, e.g., Kavanaugh, and the liberal justices have been typically rejected it. In sum, this is not a case in which the President claims to be acting on his own inherent Article II authority without the consent or authorization of Congress. Rather, it's one in which there is a dispute about whether Congress has already delegated certain discretion to the President. (Having read Youngstown Steel, you know the importance of whether a statute has authorized the President's actions.) Here is Trump's opening brief, which identifies the specific statutory language upon which he is relying: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1287/375365/20250919182906186_24-1287ts_Govt_IEEPATariffs_final.pdf Here is some of the respondents' briefing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1287/380052/20251020141757521_25-250 - Merits Brief for Private Respondents.pdf You can find the rest of the briefing here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1287.html Here's the transcript of the oral argument: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1287_b07d.pdf My prediction is that Trump loses on the statutory interpretation question, and thus the Court never reaches the constitutional non-delegation question.

Some of the things you mention under Question 1 are very concerning to me while others are more debateable and closer to normal disputes about the extent of executive power. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023). Also, I don't think you answered my question, which is a difficult one: In the context of a republic that is going to have a federal election in 2026, can you describe specifically what you believe the "good people" could or should be doing that they are not? What actions are your conversation partners suggesting that are causing you to counsel moderation? Or are they just concerned that things could turn out badly? Finally, no, I don't think Trump will use the armed forces to seize power in connection with the 2026 elections nor do I think he would be successful if he tried. I suppose there's some possibility it could happen, but see my prior question.