KJP

Me too at $3.69

Alpha Metallurgical (AMR) is the poster child for this. The stock price has responded (to put it mildly).

Saga Communications (SGA)

You may be interested in the books and papers that have come out of the Santa Fe Institute and people associated with it, e.g.: https://www.sfipress.org/books/complexity-economics https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/working-papers/complexity-economics-a-different-framework-for-eco

Galecto (GLTO) may tempt you also.

IES Holdings ($IESC)

IDT Corp.

The ones I'm buying are all very cheap and (I think) have good to very good sustainable businesses or other interesting aspects, such as access to extraordinarily cheap, permanent financing (CZBS, UBAB, MFBP), an excellent fee-based business (TRUX), or healthy insider ownership (TRUX, OPBK). Also, I don't think any of them too many long-duration, low-yield assets. I haven't looked at any of the big banks. I find their financials and multiple business lines too complicated to understand.

Exchange Bank of Santa Rosa (EXSR) OP Bancorp (OPBK) United Bancorporation of Alabama (UBAB) Part of a small bank bundle that also includes Truxton (TRUX), Citizens Bancshares (CZBS), and M&F Bancorp (MFBP)

I'm glad you and @Dinar were paying better attention to the details than I was. I agree the withholding tax will be very high unless your exempt for some reason.

You are right! I completely missed this. Following up on your note about IRAs, those interested should see this: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4016/exempt-s-organizations-under-article-xxi-canada-united-states-tax-convention.html I don't think it's just a legal question. Even assuming IRAs are exempt in theory, it looks like you and your IRA custodian have to file the right paperwork. I'm going to try this in an IRA to see what happens. I suspect my custodian will withhold the taxes.

There's likely $1000 lying around in this odd-lot tender (note Section 7(d)(v) of the Offer to Purchase), but you do have to go through the effort of picking it up: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1829959/000119312523282534/d559699dsc13e4f.htm

Over the last few weeks: Truxton Corp. (TRUX) Citizens Bancshares (CZBS) United Bancorporation of Alabama (UBAB)

I sold this at the open. After thinking it over, and helped along by a post on this board, it was clear to me I was in over my head on this one.

Not yet.

Net Lease Office Properties (NLOP)

AtkinsRealis (nee SNC-Lavalin)

Unit Corp. (UNTC) may interest those who agree with this view.

IAC

Unit Corporation (UNTC)

Isn't IMBBY the OTC symbol for Imperial Brands PLC, which trades in London under the ticker IMB? https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/etc.clientlibs/imperialbrands/corporate/components/content/oar/clientlibs/resources/pdfs/imperial-brands-2022-annual-report.pdf My understanding is that the company spinning off its hotel business is ITC Ltd., which is an India-based holdco: https://www.itcportal.com/ This company trades on the Indian exchange under the symbol ITC: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ITC:IN#xj4y7vzkg In short, IMBBY is not ITC Ltd.

I recommend contacting an attorney that specializes in estate planning for high net worth individuals and families. Expect to pay such an attorney at least $5,000 - $10,000 to meet with you to understand your current assets and goals, advise you on options, and then draft the documents necessary to execute the plan you select. If you have the level of assets you're talking about, then it's worth getting it done right.

1. Laziness when markets are going up, i.e., spending too much time reading blogs, VIC writeups, Twitter, etc., rather than drilling down on specific businesses and getting very comfortable and knowledgeable about a few. As a result, being unprepared when markets decline sharply and mentally flailing around from one potential idea to another without the confidence to swing big on good ideas. 2. Not understanding/being willing to take bigger swings when I had high confidence that due to business model and balance sheet, there was very low risk of significant loss. 3. Description masquerading as analysis. Example of a post-mortem where my initial "analysis" suffered from this flaw, among others:

I do not think this is a correct summary. The judge appears to have ruled that the sales of XRP by Ripple to Institutional Buyers pursuant to written contracts qualified as "investment contracts," and thus securities under 15 USC 77b(a)(1), because the marketing materials and statements Ripple's promoters made to those Buyers would have led a reasonable person to believe that Ripple would use the proceeds of those sales to develop applications and other uses of the XRP Ledger that would result in greater demand for XRP and thus an increase in its price. See Slip Op. at 19 ("Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court finds that reasonable investors, situated in the position of the Institutional Buyers, would have purchased XRP with the expectation that they would derive profits from Ripple’s efforts."); id. at 21 ("Clearly, t h e Institutional Buyers would have understood that Ripple was pitching a speculative value proposition for XRP with potential profits to be derived from Ripple’s entrepreneurial and managerial efforts."). That understanding -- derived from what a reasonable person would infer from Ripple's statements -- satisfied Howey's third prong that the buyer of the alleged "security" must be "led to expect profits solely from the efforts from the promoter or a third party." Id. at 11 (quoting Howey). In contrast, the judge concluded that Ripple's "programmatic" sales of XRP on exchanges to buyers who did not know who the seller was did not satisfy this test. Because buyers on a exchange do not know the seller, they could not have known that the proceeds of their purchases would go to Ripple. See Slip op. at 23. Thus, according to the judge, buyers on an exchange would not reasonably expect that any profits they earned would be derived from Ripple's efforts: Id. at 24. In addition, there was no evidence that Ripple marketing to exchange buyers in the same way that it marketed the XRP sales it made to Institutional Buyers: "There is no evidence that a reasonable Programmatic Buyer, who was generally less sophisticated as an investor , shared similar “understandings and expectations” and could parse through the multiple documents and statements that the SEC highlights, which include statements (sometimes inconsistent) across many social media platforms and news sites from a variety of Ripple speakers (with different levels of authority ) over an extended eight - year period. Therefore , having considered the economic reality and totality of circumstances , the Court concludes that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales of XRP did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts." Slip op. at 25. So, the case does not turn on institutional versus individual buyers as some headlines have suggested and some on this thread have suggested. Nor does were the programmatic sales not unlawful because of any "jurisdictional" limitation. Nor is it correct to say that the judge ruled that "XRP was an investment contract at inception." Nor is it correct to say that this ruling means than "all token offerings begin life as illegal securities." Rather, whether or not any particular sale of XRP by Ripple was an "investment contract," and thus a security, turned on the surrounding circumstances of each sale, including what reasonable investors would have understood they were getting themselves into based on the representations that Ripple made (or didn't make) to them. To state the obvious, the above is just my take. Nobody should rely on it for legal advice. I should also note that this is just one district judge's opinion. Ultimately, this will be decided by the appellate courts, unless Congress amends the Securities Act to clarify things. Here is a link to the slip opinion: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bk1n1qn1tgscrcrrfldr8/SEC-v.-Ripple-Ruling-on-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf?dl=0&rlkey=cjyfdw5rl58diqxyi3qfgix7s

This sounds like a great trip! @Dinar, if you'd consider areas with lakes rather than oceans, a few places closer to home that my kids have enjoyed are the Berkshires in Massachusetts, Southern Vermont (around Manchester), and the White Mountains in New Hampshire.