rb
-
Posts
4,182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by rb
-
-
My apologies EliG. But hey maybe multiple sources would help facts sink in. Wouldn't bet money on it though.
-
Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?
Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".
Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.
How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?
I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts:
The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff.
Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies.
So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts?
-
Yea I think the ideological points here are a bit murky. I don't have a particularly high opinion of Jobs as a person and I'm not that crazy about Apple products. But the fact is that he's done the things he's done and people responded very positively to that. The people have spoken! Who am I to disagree with that? I'm not Don Quijote. The fact is that Jobs did these things and they weren't easy otherwise someone else would have done them.
On one hand there are some ideological purists around here. They claim that Jobs didn't do anything because he didn't invent the microchip or the radio or whatever. On the other hand you there are a bunch of dudes who claim that Trump is the greatest being that ever walked the Earth because he's rich. Like he invented leveraged real estate investing while stiffing your shareholders and stakeholders. At the same time they take a shit on Prem cause he's not as rich as Trump (disputable fact) because he was an emigrant not a trust fund baby who slugged it out through thick and thin to build a company larger than Trump's without stealing from his partners.
I've had several conversations with Prem and while we didn't touch on wealth levels I got the feeling that the man doesn't give a single flyer whether he's richer or poorer than Trump and if you tried to force him to operate the way Trump does he'd go back to selling air conditioners.
-
Wow, the borrow on MIC is large!
TBW, I understand your thinking. I like US banks as well. But in a pair trade you would try to match the characteristics of the underlyings mainly for downside protection. For example is the bubble is really stubborn and housing goes on a tear from here you don't loose your shirt. Bubbles are weird like that.
The reason why I brought up TD. Is because they indeed have a large US operation. They've also pulled back on residential lending years ago. I don't think they'll be spared if things go bad but I have more than a sneaky suspicion that they have the best RE loan portfolio out of CAD banks.
RE the secondary market I think TBW is correct I don't see how you borrow tons of money at 14% if you can't borrow at 4%. But this market has been so crazy that nothing would surprise me.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of long TD and short MIC. What do you think? It may not be as profitable but it's a lot more conservative.
Also I don't have such confidence that the divvy will get cut so soon. I think they cut the div before they fail. I also don't have confidence that the MIC management is very honest so I'm a bit weary of that.
Do you know what the borrow is for MIC? What are you paying for EQB?
-
I agree that MIC is probably the best candidate for a short. It has to be a creative trade though not just a straight short. MIC's yield makes a short an expensive proposition. Reminds me of countrywide. They also had a large div to prevent shorting.
-
Yes, and given that past performance 9% of voters in the poll say that they would trust Trump to run BRK.
-
Like exactly how it would play out and through which explicit mechanisms would the deficit be eliminated. Also if you could explain why default is the only way deficit can be eliminated.
-
Here's a bit more regarding Donald's "integrity":
Just a word for anyone thinking of providing services to Donald: Demand payment up-front, and in-full.
Most of these unpaid bills stem from Trump firms/properties that went into bankruptcy. It's a bit ironic for me to think that Trump who had several of his firms go into bankruptcy is qualified to fix the Us deficit.
Is it ironic? Declaring bankrupcy seems like the only way to fix the deficit. Of course this can also take the firm of printing to inflate your debt away (but that's simply a more sneaky method to go the bankrupcy route thatcmost people wont recognize).
Maybe you could elaborate on how bankruptcy would fix the deficit, or how it is the only way. I think we all need a laugh.
-
The PTSD was awful. Not sure if it was a new low but it was just awful. He just keeps pulling this stuff out of his ass that he has no idea about. I'd like to see his winning temperament if he was dropped in a war zone in Afganistan fighting against battle hardened mujahideen with 20-30 years of fighting experience.
I know, that's not possible... because he has a bone spur in.... some foot. You can look it up in some records somewhere. The only war he knows about is a twitter war and he looks like he has PTSD from that as well. Maybe he should stick to feuding with comedians and beauty queens.
-
Not 100% sure what you mean by housing, but the whole Real Estate sector is just over 10% of GDP.
-
Another interesting one to add to the list--in addition to HRC--would be Obama. I think it's tough finding someone that ranks higher than Bezos and Musk.
I'd say Gates is pretty successful. Build huge company. Build huge wealth. Build huge foundation. Help cure disease all over the world. Improve millions of lives. Not bad.
-
I would agree with you if you are talking about stiffing contractors. He seems to have repeatedly done that. That is disgusting if true.
Here's an example:
-
Guess I must be illiterate too because I second rb's WOW!
Yes but you're voting for Clinton so therefore you're challenged :P. That's why you don't realize that what the country needs is the mother of all economic crises, blowing up financial systems all over the world, mass unemployment and massive destruction of wealth.
Edit: physdude, you're incorrect about treasury futures. If scott gets his wish there won't be a counterparty in the world to pay him his gains.
-
I'm glad to see that you've watched my Review of Hillary's America and have come to the same conclusion about the fate of the country as I have. The liberals have had 8 years in charge and have nearly bankrupted the country in the process.We need someone with Donald Trump's experience in handling credit negotiations and skill in navigating bankruptcy to manage our impending national debt default that Obama has gotten us into.
Donald Trump's skillset is very unique and it is also uniquely tailored to this nasty era in America's history. I don't think Hillary has what it takes to sit across the table from the Chineses and stare them straight in the eye and tell them, your bonds are worth zero and are only good as toilet paper from here on out. Trump has been to the rodeo enough times to be able to get the point across in a way that they'll know who is boss.
If I owe $100k the bank owns me, if I owe $100 trillion I own the bank.
WOW! I don't even know where to begin with this one. First you accuse Obama of bankrupting the country. Never mind the fact that when he took over the country was in a full blown financial crisis and now things don't look too bad. But then your cure to all that is to put Trump in charge in order to default on US bonds, which would be literally bankrupting the country. Nice thinking!
-
I never understood the whole natural born citizen thing either. It didn't bother me too much to try to decode it because I didn't think that Obama was not eligible to be president. I believe that the US government has mechanisms in place to determine if someone can be president or not.
I think that it's a bit more complicated than at first sight. For example, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was eligible to become president.
-
I have the same issue RB. Actually my issue is worse. I work for one of the banks (not TD) and 99% of my RRSP is in the stock. I was planning to hold my shares until I retire in 25 years but I don't think it is smart to do that anymore.
Not sure why your issue is worse, but yea, depending on the size of your position it may be smart to pare down your holding especially since it's not TD. I like the others a lot less.
-
Ok, now you have the Republican Presidential Nominee tweeting about beauty queens sex tapes. This must be for all those values voters out there.
-
Ok, i'll talk a bit about punches.
Sometimes yes a punch should be sold just for overvaluation. Such as Coke in 1998. At the time Buffett was complaining that coke was expensive. A couple of years later he said that he should have been selling instead of complaining. The money that Buffett works with restrict his movement a lot in respect to entering and exiting positions not to mention headlines and other significance. I don't have those limitations. I can move in and out freely. For example BRK is one of my punches. I like it a lot. But should BRK go to 300 or 400 per class B you bet ur ass I'd sell it.
Now let's move to a more practical example that's happening right now for me. That is TD bank. I really like it. heavy retail focus. Lots of deposits, no fancy derivatives book. I started buying it in 2001. Kept on buying along time. No purchases since 2009. Has been a top position in the portfolio. It has done really well for me I'm considering selling it. Reasons?
1. Not reason, just more info. I didn't really get sour on the dynamics of the company nor has it had a a big change in direction.
2. It's a Canadian bank and there is a housing bubble in Canada. While I think they handled the environment better than other banks (they pulled back on RE lending years ago) they are still a big player and when shit will hit the fan they will probably fare better than other banks i don't think they'll be spared the carnage.
3. It's a bank with a retail focus and the Canadian consumer is way over levered so future growth is likely to be limited. Growth right now is on borrowed time.
4. It has a very large US operation and there is a valuation differential. TD is trading at 1.57 book. I believe that Wells is a really good comp for TD and and Wells is at 1.11 book. If you were to back that out the Canadian part is trading at a crazy multiple especially given the environment.
5. This isn't that big but Ed Clark is no longer the CEO. Ed Clark was the CEO of Canada Trust which was kind of like a Canadian S&L, very big for and S&L but small compared to the banks and excellently run as a retail banking operation. TD bought it in 2000, before that TD was kind of a shit bank. Then they bought Canada Trust, sacked (retied?) the TD CEO and put Ed in charge. He then proceeded to remake TD into Canada Trust image and TD went from last among the big 5 banks to a close second. Now I think that he's been in charge long enough that the company had a permanent cultural change and have no reason to believe that the new CEO (who was a big general to Ed) isn't up to snuff but the previous guy was really that good that i think it's really hard to emulate.
I know it's a long reply but that's how punches are, like a part of the family. Held it for more than 15 years and now I'm thinking of cutting it. Not sure if I should exit completely or I should just pare back. But I think this is the process of exiting a punch. Either your initial thesis was wrong, or the fundamentals of the company significantly changed either by internal factors or external conditions (as in the case of TD), or the valuation has gotten out of control.
I would encourage others to post about their punches at length. Most importantly so I can steal your ideas :) but also so we can learn from each other. I would much prefer to own punches rather than trades. I hope other contribute, but if you guys want I can post another. I'll take requests.
-
Some Deutsche Bank Clients Reduce Collateral on Trades
William Canny
September 29, 2016
Yea, I think there's a slow motion run happening on Deutsche. It's subtle now, but it may become not so subtle in the coming days. If the Germans are smart they bail it out this weekend. If they don't things will get pretty messy.
-
Well this board has many threads. This is clearly a political one. I and others engage in it because we are interested in the subjects. I engage in others too. I don't engage in others because I don't care about the issue or stock that's being discussed. That choice is available to you as well.
I should say that I don't see this spilling in other parts of the board. There aren't people debating Trump vs. Clinton on on the WFC, or AMZN, or SBUX thread. But this is a community, and the members are people, and we have political views, and we'll work through them. To pretend those don't exist would be juvenile.
The fact that not many people are swayed one way or the other says a lot about the place where the US finds itself today. But some people are. And that makes it worthwhile.
-
Trump also attended West Point and that's an extremely difficult school to get into.
Yea, that's bullshit!
-
Would you trust Warren Buffet as your diving instructor? Would you trust him to take your three year old toddler for a walk in NYC? etc.
I would not. So? Does that make him unfit to manage BRK?
Meaningless topic.
Not really meaningless. Making Trump the CEO of another corporation is not the same as making Warren a babysitter or diving instructor. Especially since he's such a brilliant businessman. Asking the question when you have money at stake i think focuses the mind.
Why wouldn't you trust Trump to run BRK? Because he's not a good businessman? Because he's not a good dealmaker? Because he's not a good capital allocator? Because he'd loot shareholders?
If you won't trust him to run BRK where you have your money why would you trust him to run the federal government and foreign policy?
-
If legacy is partly attributed to how your children have developed then Trump wins hands down.
Cardboard
What's so special about Trump's children?
Legacy: How about giving tens and tens of billions to a real charity that tackles important problems for the betterment of humanity and the reduction of human suffering, and convincing dozens of other billionaires to do the same, rather than building kitsch golden palaces with your name in giant letters on the front door and using charity money to have paintings of yourself made?
When I think Buffett, I think "smart", "integrity", and "teacher". When I think Trump, I think "bully", "salesman", and "megalomaniac".
We'll see how history remembers both...
If people would be ranked on a list based on the job they've done raising their children, you would have a list of some fabulous human beings that you normally don't hear anything about. Buffett or Trump won't be anywhere near the top. Buffett wouldn't comment. Trump would gripe "The list is Rigged! Ivanka's tits are great! The Best! Believe Me!"
If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)
in General Discussion
Posted
Well muscleman, you didn't answer my question as to how Hillary sold US Uranium as opposed to say a board of directors in Toronto. Never mind to say that it was US's uranium to begin with. I would think that it belonged to said Canadian company.
But since you bring up investment thinking and employing our Jedi sense of smell let's look into that. See when I do investment analysis I also use facts and figures and valuations. So let's assume that Uranium one shouldn't have gotten the approval and had to bribe Hillary $140 mil to get state approval. I would think then that they would have to also bribe the other 8 US agencies as well. But let's say they didn't have to because Hillary is an all powerful force that forced them to approve the deal - a stretch but ok.
Ok, so now my US approval costs me $140 mil. Why the hell would I do that? Those assets aren't worth very much. Why would I pay a huge bribe for US approval when instead I could just divest my US mine which is not significant to my operations and then I don't need US approval anymore.