rb
-
Posts
4,182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by rb
-
-
LC, I fully agree with you. If we could get this election done today and move on it would be great! However, I think you better hang on to your hat cause you ain't seen nothing yet. I think Trump is just figuring out that he can't win and just like a toddler who can't have a toy he's gonna throw a massive fit only this one will be of global proportions. He'll spew his hatred everywhere like a fire hydrant. He has a microphone and he'll use to make everything ugly. We'll just have to brace 20 some more days like this and then we can all take a long shower and move on. Ugh!
-
Why would such a question be not about facts?
To me it tells me HC just does not understand investment process, at least the Buffett type. You are supposed to hold or even buy more when it goes down and sell when it goes up, but this prevents such a process. If something is overpriced after holding for 3 years, why should that person be prevented from selling it?
Buffett had hundreds of stocks during his 13 year partnership which works out to much shorter than 6 years of holding period. Even if you consider earlier Berkshire investments, it turns out much lower. Here is one study:
"The median holding period is one year, with approximately 20% (30%) of stocks held for more than two years (less than six months)." of Berkshire holdings.
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/7307/animal-spirits/why-dont-we-all-just-do-what-warren-buffett-does/
Ok, my judgement regarding your facts affinity was from other posts you made, not your question. If my judgement was wrong I apologize.
Let's dive into this. Firstly, that link you posted with the is nonsense. They measure turnover at BRK by number of names not by value of the portfolio. So basically if a manager a Geico buys 1,000 shares of xyz as a tracker and then sells it next year they count it as turnover at BRK like they moved out of their WFC position which is ridiculous.
Secondly, yes Buffett was much more of a speculator in his youth. He moved out of that later on.
Thirdly, the capital gains tax benefit is in the tax code to stimulate primary investment such as capital injection in business for expansion, entrepreneurship, etc. which is inherently long term. It wasn't meant to provide a benefit to secondary investment such as stock market speculation which is what you're talking about.
Fourthly, I don't see how this your point that she doesn't understand the investment process. Real investment which is primary investment is inherently long term. Secondary investment (stock market) is relevant in it's two primary purposes: liquidity and price discovery. As I mentioned in my previous post I don't see how this hurts either of those two purposes and you haven't provided any arguments.
Fifthly, would I as a secondary investor prefer more idiots in the market as opposed to more of the Buffett the elder? Oh yea! Is it better for society to have more Buffett the elder in the markets? Oh yea! Given the choices I'd go with the better for society option and I'll sharpen my pencil a little more.
-
Richard that is so unfair. I raised for example the effect of Hillary proposal of redefining short term for capital gains for 6 years. I have not had one response even after couple of posts. Why is that even on a forum for investments?
I've seen that question when you posted it but didn't really want to engage because I thought you're part of the facts don't matter crowd. I operate on facts. But if you want to go into it honestly I'll give that a shot. It'll be more of a sketch cause it's a bit late and I don't wanna write a white paper on this, so more of a collection of thoughts.
So whenever you're talking about tax policy you're talking about gov't revenue levels, incentives or a combination of the two. Obviously I think this proposal will increase taxes. By what level it remains to be seen, but I think it'll be net revenue positive. Obviously Hillary's plan has some new expenditures for the government (education, infrastructure, family leave, tax credits for families, etc) if you want to do those things and not blow up the deficit you need to raise taxes somewhere. This is part of that tax raise. Trump promises a massive increase in spending, a massive tax cut, and a massive cut in debt which makes him delusional. But let's not focus on that. Anyway, if you're against any tax raises anywhere period then I understand your point of view and there's not much more to discuss. If not let's move to the next part about incentives.
Obviously a change in capital gains taxation will have some influence on investments. It will obviously discourage some but not all short term investments. Financial markets serve two purposes: liquidity and price discovery. Would this change in taxation be detrimental to any of them? No. It will not lower liquidity because market making is not taxed as capital gains and I think it'll probably aid price discovery. If you implement H's plan you'll push investors to become more long term investors as opposed to speculators. Then basically everyone has to sharpen their pencils and do better research so they can hold companies longer which leads to better price discouraging. Basically nudging people from the CNBC crowd to the Buffett crowd. I don't see this hurting the markets at all and I think we could all do with a bit less speculation these days.
These are just my initial thoughts. If you want to explore it further I'm down.
-
Ok, here's current account for US going back a lot. It's been getting better lately.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BPBLTT01USQ188S
If you use balance of trade. That's fine too. They mainly tell the same story. By the way, BoT also includes services as well, not just goods and money that technology companies make are included as services exports so that's not the issue.
In addition, as Investor 20 alluded, deficits are driven by the difference between production and consumption. To put this in more concrete terms trade balances are mainly driven by the savings rate and the US for a long time has had a negative savings rate, consistently consuming more than it produces.
Eliminating trade deficits in my opinion in harder IMO because it would involve deeply unpopular political decisions: devaluation of the USD, or other measures that could be dressed a million ways but are actually a tax in one form or another.
-
I think the word you're looking for is deplorable.
I think support for Trump would be cause to end a friendship, especially if you've reasoned with the person.
A good example of someone who doesn't understand how people make political decisions.
I actually agree with the naked swimmer that Trump would be cause to end friendships. However I don't think that friendships get ended because one votes for the other party or because people don't understand how political decisions get made. I think friendships end because Trump has empowered people to express how they really think and feel. Now they lay out their thoughts bare and it enables you to have a clearer picture of the person.
Let me share a personal anecdote. I'll preface that I hang out in pretty conservative circles not with super PC people. I was at this party a while back and one of our friends was there. Normally he tends to be the loud, opinionated, in your face type but otherwise seemed a perfectly nice guy. So we all thought, well that just his style. Now at this party he starts going on this massive rant just shouting how Trump is so awesome, then he moves on to the Jews, then to holocaust denial, then to blacks (not the word he used), Muslims (again not the word/words he used), and then he tops it off with his view that political correctness is out of control and that's why you can't beat your wife and kids anymore which is unfortunate. Everyone fell quiet and I haven't really seen him around much after that.
Friendships as all relationships are built on a common set of values. If it comes out that one person doesn't share those values or has a completely opposite set then the relationship is in danger. For example, if I find out that Joey is a member of the Klan, that's a deal breaker. I'm not gonna continue hanging out with him just because he's fun at parties.
-
WTF is going on with there people ???
"Rush Limbaugh complains that "the Left" treats nonconsensual sex as rape" (posted by a "Law professor @MiamiLawSchool crim/1st Am/family law")
I think the word you're looking for is deplorable.
-
I wouldn't trade places with Kellyanne Conway right now for all the scotch in Scotland.
Also I may be speaking too soon of course, but am I the only one who thinks that it's a cruel irony that Hillary Clinton's presidential win gets cemented by a sex scandal? If Shakespeare were alive today he'd write something brilliant about this.
-
Yea, both the NYT story and the escalator tape fall deep into the yuck pit. i don't think that's gonna move evangelicals or his die hard fans.
On the other hand, in response to the Times story Trump threatens to sue the newspaper (what's new?) and triples down on dredging up all the 90s bill clinton stuff.
-
Trump bragging about walking in on naked 15-year-olds in changing rooms at his pageant, said he could get away with it:
What a creep.
The man is a bottomless pit of yuck. Of course the family values republicans have no problem to continue to support him.
I wonder where is the breaking point. Does he have to walk on the stage at the 3rd debate take his dick out and start plucking it? Even then, they'll probably go like "well that was disgusting but we still support him because he'll appoint conservative judges" or something like that. Principled conservatives my ass!
-
This is how messed up Trump made this election. It made Glenn Beck make statements that I agree with. Never thought I'd see the day.
-
This shit stopped being funny a while back. But the fact is that despite all that went down half of the Republican party is still solidly with him. The republican speaker of the house is not going to defend him anymore but won't revoke his endorsement of him??? You know.... patriots!
-
-
“Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
I know, the big scoop, Hillary Clinton thinks that markets are important, should be transparent, and accountable. It's also been leaked that she was for free movement of goods, the keystone pipeline, and universal healthcare. You know things she said publicly before.
I don't know what people think about the speeches. Does the right think she went into a room with hundreds of people and advocated for the rape and pillage of America???
-
I'm curious what Mike Pence has to say about this. You know the guy who's a christian/conservative/republican in that order.
Because we all know what christianity says: "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. Thou shall grab her by the pussy!" I get the feeling Pence's identity order is about to get rearranged.
-
Actually I think I understand why Fox wants Trump to win and I don't think that it has anything to do with ideology. Fox's stock price is inversely related to Trump's poll numbers. Like it or not Trump has a huge base which are currently Fox consumers. If Trump wins he goes to become president and play with the world. If Trump looses and starts a media company he will unleash a large value destruction on Fox. From what I can tell he has all the right ingredients to start a right/alt-right media company: Trump's large base of devotees, Steve Bannon, Roger Ailes.
-
I'm looking forward to see the evangelicals try to justify voting for Trump anyway, cause you know ..... family values.
Nevermind,
“I think it will have little or no impact. People of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defend religious freedom, grow the economy, appoint conservative judges and oppose the Iran nuclear deal,” said Ralph Reed, the founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a Trump supporter. “In their hierarchy of concerns, an eleven-year-old tape of a private conversation with a talk show host on a tour bus ranks very low.”
Sure, we're all for family values, but grabbing women by the pussy, commiting sexual assault, and trying to fuck married women is ok as long as you appoint conservative judges. You know, family values. What a joke!
-
I'm looking forward to see the evangelicals try to justify voting for Trump anyway, cause you know ..... family values.
-
BRK, WFC, TD, NESN, RR, MSFT, CSCO, KO, PM and a bunch of smaller positions
-
Buffett is a great example of frugal living, as are many brk executives.
He knows how he wants to live and what makes him happy and does exactly that, doesn't spend more just because he has more, doesn't clutter his life with the superficial trappings of success that he doesn't particularly care for.
Would he be happier with 10 houses and yatchs and planes, drinking $5000 bottles of wine and eating caviar?
Liberty, I don't think there's much point arguing about thins, not that I don't enjoy the discussion. I think that this is a world view that if you don't get it in 5 minutes you'll just never get it. People are just wired differently.
You brought in Buffett. For comparison purposes I'll take a polar opposite: Trump. Both are very rich and can afford to get anything that they want. One lives in Omaha in a larger but otherwise quite average house, works 9-5 and then goes home and watches Breaking Bad or whatever, and gets a good night sleep. The other lives in a gold plated penthouse in NYC, works insane hours, barely sleeps, and engages in twitter wars in the middle of the night. Both seem really happy with their lives. If you forced them to trade places that will probably both be so unhappy that suicide would not be out of the question.
It's really as simple as that. Different strokes for different folks. I see people everyday, working ever longer hours. But they want bigger and bigger houses that they don't need. They can't afford them, so they decide to work even longer hours and buy then further away (where they're cheaper) and then they spend extra hours in traffic jams to commute back and forth every day. Then they have to spend more money to get extra crap to fill the bigger house, and more money on repairs and more time on cleaning. To me and maybe you just seems totally idiotic. But to them it makes perfect sense and I'm the idiot. Who knows? maybe I'm lazier than them. I just know that i really like my time :).
-
Cash in now north of $70B. Time to bag another elephant! :)
-
Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war? I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft). This issue might be what decides my vote.
In order from least likely to lead us into a major war to most likely: Stein, Johnson, Trump, Hillary.
That is also the same order for least likely to win to most likely.
rkbababg, I know we've tangled on topics before and that our ideologies and ways of looking on things are different. Still I like reading your posts because you don't seem to have a problem with facts unlike others. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue.
You have put Trump as less likely to start a major war than Clinton. Others here have expressed similar opinions of Trump the pacifist. Well if Trump is such a pacifist and unlikely to start major wars why is he constantly talking about investing in and expanding the military? The US military is already by far the biggest, most effective, rock out, death and destruction machine ever known to mankind. It already dominates the world. It is surely way too large already to just protect the United States without massive force projection abroad. So if Trump as president wants to retreat from the world militarily and is not looking to start major wars, why does he need to expand the military?
-
Let me pile in a bit here as well. To start in my life I am more like rukawa and Liberty. I don't spend much on useless things, but I'm not a cheapskate either. I'm also not a big fan of MMM and some of the followers are a bit out there. I know some people that have cars with AC but won't run it in order to save a sliver of money. I drive a BMW. I'd be insane to not run the AC and sweat like a pig in order to save a bit of money. But I don't think that the premise of communities like MMM is wrong just that they're already picked the low hanging fruit and now they're focusing on marginal things that are a bit ridiculous sometimes and will just have a marginal impact.
Can this work for society at large? I think it can. If it's applied at country level what would happen is that the country will start to run fairly large trade surpluses. This means that the country would become an exporter which means that you need to have importer countries to buy your product. But at a global scale exports=imports. So let's expand a bit and say that everyone in the world starts acting that way. Well then you would loose the excess savings and early retirement part. However everyone would work less and have more leisure time. So instead of the bulk of free time being concentrated at the end it's spread throughout. A bit of a different outcome but doesn't sound all that bad.
-
Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war? I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft). This issue might be what decides my vote.
This is a difficult question to answer. While the US did not use best judgement engaging in military conflicts in the past sometimes military action is necessary. So I don't think one should be looking for a president that would park the military and forget they have it.
It seems that you are concerned with your specific situation namely sons of draft age, so I'm thinking that you are concerned about a large conflict that requires massive military deployment. While Hillary seems to be on the hawkish side and is definitely comfortable with American power I think that the conflicts she would engage in would be of the strategic/surgical type that won't require huge deployments and a larger military.
On the other side. While no one knows the future, I think there's a larger chance that Trump engages in a major conflict. Maybe not even intentionally but just because he doesn't know what he's doing. Some president somewhere says something bad about him and he invades xyz country and then you have Vietnam 2.
-
Ok, this is pretty funny. When someone challenges you guys with facts on some of your assertions. Your reaction is to disregard facts and go back to conspiracy and innuendo. Somehow facts must be wrong.... you know, fishy smells, emails, speeches, Bill!, Bill!.
By the way, by looking into Bill's speeches, I'm starting to think that he damn good at that since even the die hard republicans are paying him for speeches. Businesses associated with the Ricketts paid him about 2 million in speaking fees. Anthony Scaramucci paid him for a speech in 2010 and declared that he's a stud. I soget a feeling that Trump won't be paid by hired by the Soros foundation to give a speech.
If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)
in General Discussion
Posted
Guys, let's lay off the Trump kids.
Yes I know some brought it up that it's a great attribute of Trump that his kids are normal which was stupid since he's on the record that he didn't help raising them. Also you know you're dealing with a low caliber person when a good point about them is "well at least he didn't fuck up his kids". Yes I know that Jr. sounds like a real d-bag. Yes Ivanka looks really polished even though her husband seems to be directing a lot of the vitriol of the campaign.
However, the fact is that the kids are not running for president. Just like Bill isn't running, just like Chelsea isn't running. So let's just move on.