KJP

McKinsey's Valuation treatise may work for you. It does a good job of, among other things, walking you step-by-step on how to rearrange GAAP financial statements to look at underlying returns on capital.

LICT may interest you. Very conservatively capitalized (particularly for its industry), decent current free cash flow yield and Gabelli controls capital allocation (buybacks).

2020: 14% Historical 2020: 14% 2019: 31% 2018: 11% 2017: 10% 2016: 22% Largest positive 2020 impact on portfolio: Griffin Industrial, Charter, IES Holdings, Rosetta Stone, Parkit, Williams, IAC Largest negative 2020 impact on portfolio: Black Stone Minerals, Wells Fargo, Hill International After a good 2019, I was fat, lazy, and unprepared in March, which led to some poor investment decisions, poor portfolio management, and missed opportunities. Hopefully I've learned a few lessons. The distribution of returns in the voting is interesting. If the S&P is down, say, 15% next year, will we have the opposite negative skew to returns (a fat tail with -50% returns), or have board members mastered catching big upside while avoiding big downside?

Huntington Ingalls

Congratulations! I will take the money and run. It's nice to get bailed out by something that didn't have anything to do with why I invested.

Parkit (PKTEF)

Excluding cash: US Cable/Broadband: 23% Charter: 15% Altice USA: 5.5% LICT: 2.5% US Real Estate: 22% Griffin Industrial Realty: 9% [This was 17+% until sold half recently] FRP Holdings: 7% Paramount Group: 3% PCYO: 3% US Energy Midstream: 8.5% Williams: 5.75% Enterprise Products: 3% Others Huntington Ingalls: 8% [Growing increasingly uncertain about this; likely will go] IAC: 7% IES Holdings: 6.5% Hill International: 5.75% Black Stone Minerals: 5% Quorum Information Technologies: 4% Wells Fargo: 4% Advant-E: 4% IDW Media Holdings: 1% General Dynamics: 0.5% Glancing over this, it appears that the biggest decision here is one I didn't consciously make: Massive overweight to the United States (I am a US resident).

50% of Griffin Industrial Realty

Vornado a bit of Paramount Group

An "asset-light" home builder typically is one that does not have a large, on-balance-sheet land bank. Instead, they, for example, will use option contracts to control large amounts of land. NVR is an example of this asset-light model. The other area where home builders and sink alot of assets is inventory, i.e., homes that are built or in the process of being built. That is a reason some home builders produce no free cash flow despite substantial earnings. In theory, this working capital drag should ease as growth slows (or even goes negative), but that is the same point in the cycle at which you start to get inventory writedowns (and either land-bank writedowns or write-offs of land options).

Correct.

Alexander's Equity Residential [if history is any guide, these are good buy signals.]

Sold Comcast, bought Altice USA.

See, e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/squash-lacrosse-niche-sports-ivy-league-admissions/616474/

There's some of those here too. We're likely not in too different of an environment. You have the Del Barton, Lawrenceville, Peck, Morristown-Beards of the world which are $40-60k a year but for mere mortals the Bergen Catholic, St. Joe, Don Bosco Preps are all reasonable at $15-20k a year, IMO. Yes, I think the difference between Bergen Catholic and, say, Hackensack High School is very significant. You also have a good pipeline into schools like Fordham and Georgetown. It's just tough to pay NJ property taxes and then also private school tuition, though I suspect many to private only for high school.

I'm surprised at the relatively low costs being cited here. Where I live (Philadelphia area), the higher end private schools are $30,000 - $40,000 per year. Here are some examples: Germantown Friends: https://www.germantownfriends.org/admissions/tuition-fees Springside: https://www.sch.org/admissions/tuition-financial-aid Germantown Academy: https://www.germantownacademy.net/admission/tuition-and-fees Haverford: https://www.haverford.org/admissions/tuition-and-value Shipley: https://www.shipleyschool.org/admissions/affording-shipley Abington Friends: https://www.abingtonfriends.net/admission/tuition/ Baldwin: https://www.baldwinschool.org/admissions/affording-baldwin Friends Select: https://www.friends-select.org/admission/tuition So, what types of schools are charging $10k/year? Is it the neighborhood Catholic school? Moreover, it's not clear to me that even the high cost schools produce big advantages in college admissions relative to good public schools. Here are the college matriculation lists from two of them: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1591801606/schorg/cejrwfxfqpopzdichsmf/MatriculationList2016-2020.pdf https://www.friends-select.org/educational-program/college-planning-and-placement/college-list

The demand to relocate out of expensive cities seems to be high according a survey by Blind, which verifies employees by asking them to provide their company email address. Roughly third are willing to relocate even with a pay cut. In addition, 40-45% will relocate without a paycut, depending on city/company. Here are results broken down by company and by city: https://www.teamblind.com/blog/index.php/2020/09/14/44-of-professionals-are-happy-to-take-a-pay-cut/ https://usblog.teamblind.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PayCut.pdf https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zF_jxowBZYkiJIeatZAm3soelVBpoFf1TbjEZVwxBpA/edit#gid=171959972 I don't think that's the demand curve Bizaro was referring to. You appear to be trying to identify the number of people currently living in cities who would move elsewhere if they believed they could. I believe he's asking about the demand from people who would like to live in cities (or different cities) but currently do not because it is not practical for them (cost, location) to do so. Is it possible that widespread WFH actually increases demand for certain cities, because people who historically had to work in say, Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock or Tulsa can now live in NYC, Boston or LA? Likewise, is it possible that housing in Minneapolis becomes more in demand because WFH frees people from living in, for example, Duluth? Put another way, your comments seem to assume that people are in cities because that's traditionally where good jobs have been. But what if it's the other way around: Goods jobs are traditionally in cities because that's where people want to be? If it's primarily the latter -- and if the desire to live in cities going forward has not changed -- when how would widspread WFH affect demand for urban housing? Applying this framework to the Detroit example, vacancies were high and housing prices low, not just because people left but also because other people did not want to move in.

Demographics appear to be another SFH tailwind: https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/10/demographics-renting-vs-owning.html

It's great move, Speculatius, Because HII is not a business, it's a scheme [with a ticker, though] to suck up funds from the US military budget to keep people meaningless employed. Well, I am not sure I fully agree. Should the US just outsource building these ships to Korean shipbuilders for example? it sure would be cheaper, but I don’t think it would ever happen. There is some issue with IP too, but I don’t think there is much IP in the hulls and that is actually my concern with HII in the long run. Longer term, military power is going to be driven by technology much more so than by the number of boots on the ground. that’s why I believe the likes of LMT, NOC and LHX are better bets than HII. I wasn't sure what the prior cryptic comment was getting at. But I agree with you that the biggest risk here is that advances in anti-ship cruise and anti-ship ballistic missiles (aided by satellite guidance) render large surface ships like aircraft carriers obsolete in combat against other advanced militaries. There are already commentators who believe that even in the open ocean US carrier battle groups would not survive the initial stages of a serious conflict with China or Russia. As you note, the construction of aircraft carriers won't be outsourced to non-US shipyards, nor will a competing US shipyard be built. Rather, the threat to HII is that in 10 years aircraft carriers and other large surface ships won't be built at all. That being said, if you look at the free cash flow HII is likely to generate from the current order book over the next 5-10 years, what terminal value is actually being assigned to the business?

I had the same thought. I realize PCYO is concentrated in one area and the big homebuilders are much more geographically diverse, but it's strange that PCYO hasn't really budged.

Hmm, Denmark vs Sweden. Why would anyone choose to just have Denmark's trashed economy when they can instead have Sweden's equally trashed economy and but also five times the death rate? (Note the grey dots, the Scandinavian countries that are the best comparatives for Sweden.) Like, is it really that important to Trump fans that a bunch of extra people die without actually improving the economy? And if you're going to say, we "we should be like that country", why wouldn't you just choose South Korea? A tiny death rate and a robust economy. What's not to like? The difference in death rates in what I assume to be roughly comparable countries is very interesting. Can anyone link to what they believe to be sound analyses of, for example, Greece v. Italy or Austria v. France? Similarly, Korea or Japan vs. United States? I apologize if these have already been posted; I haven't scrolled through the whole thread.

Looks like a very balanced approach. For us as investors, I'm thinking two implications from his two statements in his interview with the Time Magazine at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpn1rebBfqY: More employees could spread out into exurbs: Sundar wants to give employees flexibility so that they don't have to commute 2 hours, e.g. on Fridays, as those commutes prevent employees from being able to make plans with friends and families. This would mean more employees could move farther out, increasing the supply of housing they could consider for living, in turn, decreasing the price of housing within 45-min of campus. Company sites could shrink in size: Sundar wants to have concept of "onsites", when employees get together to meet in person. If employees are going to meet only for "onsites", this could reduce the square footage needed for company, decreasing demand for office space, decreasing office supply. As other companies do the same, looks like this means the impact will be effective supply available will be higher for both office space and housing options. In other words, vacancy will be higher. Incremental supply can cause big swings in price as 20% vacancy did in Detroit. What are the implications for mass transit systems? If WFH permanently cut commuting days by 50%, how do, for example, the LIRR (NYC), Metro-North (NYC), NJ Transit (north and central NJ) and SEPTA (Philly) survive? If you don't have those commuter rails, how do people get into the city on the 50% of days they want to come in? Also, what about climate change? It is common to see companies pushing toward (at least purported) carbon neutrality. How can you do that if your HQ is inaccessible except by car, which would be the case for essentially all suburban or exurban locations? More broadly, many cities are the hub in a local hub-and-spoke (road and rail) transport network that may be not be so easy to unwind.

Enterprise Products Partners Hill International

Yes, terminal value is the real issue here and, as you note, projecting energy demand by source in 10-30 years is beyond probably anyone's capability. The risk is mitigated in part by the high current yields and the ability to not reinvest your dividends/distributions.

Bond investors seem to agree with you. Williams recently issued Holdco level 10-year debt at 3.5% (https://investor.williams.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Williams-Prices-1-Billion-of-Senior-Notes/default.aspx) and OpCo (Transco) level 30-year debt at 4%: https://investor.williams.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Williams-Transco-Prices-Private-Debt-Issuance/default.aspx. Meanwhile, the equity trades at a DCF yield well into the double digits. You can find similar things with refined products pipelines. For example, Enterprise Products Partners recently issued 10-year OpCo level debt at 2.6% and 30-year debt OpCo level debt at 3.2%: https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/investors/news-releases Meanwhile, the equity units currently have a distribution yield of ~10.5% and a DCF yield well into the double digits. Something seems amiss in those numbers.