Uccmal

I was going to say. People with money can move anywhere. Buy a franchise, install yourself as the manager, pay yourself a salary, and get enrolled in the provincial insurance program. If you are looking to move to Canada I will marry you oddball - thats legal here as well. My Wife and I live commonlaw so it shouldn't be a problem. Could be a marriage made in hell, and it will never get consummated but who is to know. Now, I am not sure about the 4 kids, and you would have to divorce your current wife. Details, details.... On a side note I had a girlfriend way back who had been married while she went to University in Quebec to get some sort of freebies offerred there. Dont ask me, she was pretty weird.

I go for limited impact. Just look at what is out of the Prez's control: Energy prices - fossil fuels - incidentally the largest portion of the economy - it is in everything. Energy prices are the sungle biggest driver of economic performance. Demographics - the baby boom generation being a good example in the western world and now the aging baby boom. Technological development and breakthroughs. Policies can encourage things in a certain direction and crisis response is important. But does anyone think that Bush would have behaved differently than Obama in 2009? Bernanke was in place. In fact, the bailouts started before Obama was elected. Luck has an enormous amount to do with it. And I think that each and every President knows this, before, during, and after their terms.

That is sort of my thinking on FFH. Prem has built a wonderful global insurance conglomerate. But these days, even Buffett is leery of the insurance industry.

They did issue shares in the late 1990s at 500 cdn one time to help finance the purchase of the dogs breakfast companies. There were others instances of share issuance way above book prior to that - this is a vague recollection and I have no inclination to go back. The values in book value growth quoted in each report also include the first year, and early years when they had some really good growth and revaluing of holdings. Once FFH got bigger by the late 90s the growth rates tailed off. There are many companies in Canada and elsewhere that have had higher BVPS growth, through the financial crisis. There was a time when Prem had set 20% average BVPS per year as a target, then he reduced it to 15%, around 05/06, which has never been met. In my opinion FFH is an average company these days, but no where near the top, and it never will be. At the moment it is defintiely a fairly 'safe', and reasonably predictable investment, but that comes at a price.

We all hope you're right. :) But "case in point": Russia invades Baltics (unrealistic? IMO not so much after Ukraine). What does the NATO do? ;) As I said, most likely nothing, because they also don't want WW3 and nuclear. But then NATO is kaput... what's next? Anyway, I think your point is fine: right now the probability of nuclear WW3 is still pretty low. But if before Putin it was maybe 0.004%, now it's possibly 0.06%. But, no I can't substantiate the numbers. ;) I agree with RBs stance. There's is a reason Russia would like to see Trump in the Whitehouse. He is weak. Like her or hate her, Clinton is not seen as weak. She is respected and no one will try to test her. This is important right now with the EU in apparent disarray and weak leadership in the U.K. And France. I suspect NATO has contingency plans to handle Russia that are well known to Russian operatives should Russia try to invade a NATO country. Crimea has no doubt woke them up. Rb mentions the Russian plane being shot down and Russia huffing and puffing. Russia didn't want to engage Turkey. Turkey is modern, militarily powerful, and its leader is respected. Russia engaging Turkey in any way other than Cold War type potshots is in no way in Russia's interest. Respect is a powerful thing.

I think it is changing for the first time in history. In past paradigms humans were always needed in the new role. I am no longer sure this is the case. At any rate there is going to be severe dislocation and we need good government to help navigate it. We don't need the lip service of Donald and Hilary that they are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. There is no such thing anymore. People need to be protected and uplifted in some way that gives them value, or you will get dangerous populist uprisings. Isn't the purpose of a society and its economy to improve the lives of its citizens? Or is it's purpose to create a few really wealthy people who live behind armed gates? Call it leftist if you like but I prefer the world where more people are uplifted.

Hope the coupling of my musings with the wiki leaks garbage wasn't implying that I am a leftist. My MIL thinks I am right of Atilla the Hun.

So how do you reconcile 1) with 2)? That's one of my big issues for the future. Of course, getting to 1) is even bigger issue perhaps. But, yeah, I agree with 1). Getting to 1) is gonna be bloody difficult (yeah, pun intended). Then - what do all these unemployed people on guaranteed income do for their lives? Eat/drink/inhale + watch movies/play video games? Is that a workable society? I don't know. Optimists will say culture/arts. But will we really have 90%+ doing culture/arts? What if computers do culture/arts better? Sort of what I was getting at. Governments, and us, are facing things we have never faced before. I play music. There will come a day, not too far off when computers may be programmed to play better than humans in a way that humans find pleasing. Right now it is a lot to ask. I recently saw some computer generated documentaries with computer voices and they were unlistenable. Part of it has to do with seeming almost too perfect. I am not saying that computers eliminate everything but many things. I for one don't see them as anything other than glorified calculators. For a long time there will be a role for a few humans, but what about the rest of us?

I don't know, has any of the bourgeoisie in this thread met and talked to any of the hundreds of thousands of middle-americans who attend Trump's rallies? Seems not. I have witnessed the rise of a populist party in my country and this has happened in pretty much every Western European state. Maybe you are so insular that you don't notice this over there, but the theme is well-established in Europe. This is not a one-off to do with only the unique characteristics of Trump. You just, for once, are about a decade behind us Europeans. And you are making the exact same mistake that we have done in analyzing the situation. It is not about Le Pen. It is not about Farage. It is not about Wilders. It is not about Strache. It is not about Kjaersgaard. It is not about Åkesson. It is not about "charismatic" leaders using their demagogic magic to enchant the public. It is about a ruling class that has tilted more and more in favor of special interests and certain lobby groups at the expense of serving the citizens of the country which they ostensibly are sworn to. At that point, what choice do the voters have? In my country for years and years 60-70% of the voters wanted lower immigration. At the same time 7 of 8 political parties in parliament didn't and actively pushed for higher numbers. Immigration rose every year for over a decade and then finally came to a screeching halt last year during the refugee crisis. Now we have a drag on our economy of 1-2% of GDP yearly despite the voters never asking for any of it. Some accountability. We had 163 000 asylum seekers last year in a country of 10 million people and the voters were firmly against increases when the figure was 1/5 of that. Despite being forced into a 180 by practical circumstances (i.e the imminent downfall of the system) there has been no mea culpa from anyone in charge. That is not a well-functioning democracy. Even if the issues are somewhat different from country to country in the West, the patterns of non-accountability for politicians are the same. That is what the complaints about "globalism" in the US stems from and not, for the majority of people, some resurgence of jingoism. The very concept of the state rests on the premise that it favors its own citizens. This contract has been broken in the West and people protesting it is not an expression of white supremacy or nationalism or anything of the sort per se. But it could very well devolve into tribal conflicts if elected officials keep actively undermining their own constituents. The essence of all practical politics is tribalism, it's just that where the tribal lines are drawn will change if the incentives are there. The ideal situation is that the nation is the tribe and that the citizens, of all races and creeds, all identify as tribal members. You could of course intellectually favor the abandonment of tribalism altogether, but that's never going to happen, on account of human nature. Trump will probably lose but there will be new challenges to the system if nothing changes. Probably by more competent and polished people, hopefully not by anyone more sinister than a blustering 70 year old TV star with an ego. This whole thread is upper middle-class, college-educated, financially savvy people complaining about having to watch the symptoms of a problem they don't acknowledge or aren't impacted much by. The politics of non-accountability hurt the people on the margin, not you. Use empathy. Interesting perspective, thanks. I agree that Trump is just a symptom of a greater problem. And I may be entirely wrong in the assertion that the Dems could have had anyone but Hilary and easily beaten him. The problem(s) may be deeper than that. There is an insecurity for the future, especially since 2008, that exists for many. We see it here in Canada, over and over, in smaller towns. Key industries or companies that used to hire less lucky people (undereducated, and those born in less than ideal circumstances) have completely disappeared. For awhile these jobs moved overseas - now they are just gone and will never reappear anywhere). Some people are just plain lazy as well, which doesn't help. These people used to get great unionized jobs in Steel Mills, pulp and paper companies, furniture companies, and so on. This is not a new phenomena in Canada. My first job out of University sometimes involved helping decommission factories that were closing. The people still left at the factories were always sad cases, who had worked there their whole lives in a union shop, and never planned for the future at all. Talking to them gave me part of the incentive to engage in life long learning and decouple myself from the indentured servitude of having an employer. The problem is only going to get more acute in the near future. Automation is going to kill jobs everywhere, in every business. I dont know how people adapt. Governments have a responsibility in all this, and many have failed miserably, so far. Take this message board as a microcosm. Many members here work in some area involved with software. I keep seeing headlines that everyone needs to learn to code (typically fighting the last battle). We can't be more than a few years away from computers that will take instructions verbally, from technical dummies like me, eliminating the middle man, which is everyone who codes and programs. The decline in manufacturing jobs has been gradual over 40-50 years. The decline in codIng and programming jobs will happen in an instant. What that leaves us with is an ever greater populist uprising. Governments are very seldom proactive. In fact they are just the opposite. We need leaders with vision who can see that: 1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are. As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 2) Idle hands do the Devil's work. People need a place to go and a purpose every day. Even, us 1% era need the same. We definitely don't need populist regimes in power. They lack foresight and only care for the now. Venezuela anyone?

Lol not to mention how Cheney got away with shooting his friend in the face. that's too good.... This thread is priceless. If I am not mistaken Cardboard is Canadian. We have Cdns arguing Cdns. On a side note. Trump is looking to lose the presidency, and possibly cause the loss of both chambers. How the hell did the GOP drum up this creep. And he is going to get himself sued from women, all over the place, and possibly criminally prosecuted. All for a publicity stunt. That's all it ever was to him. He doesn't give two sh*ts about those who are supporting him. If the Dems had had anyone but Clinton running this would be even more one sided. And I never get this party loyalty thing among average people. I am a democrat... I always vote democrat... huh... What's the point of having an election then?

I absolutely agree with this. I work on the retail side and see people buy high and sell low regularly. Eventually active strategies will have their day and the same people who ran into passive strategies will go back the other way (at what will likely be the worst possible time). I see institutional clients and their investment consultants doing the same thing. It's incredibly frustrating. "I see institutional clients and their investment consultants doing the same thing. It's incredibly frustrating." I dont find it frustrating - its profitable for us. To anyone who hasn't paid off their mortgage that is what I recommend. To those who have, a good index will suffice. My MIL is sitting on a pile of cash. The family wanted me to invest it and I begged off. The timelines and comprehension just are not there. She is 82 and her health is okay but not great. I don't want to be unwinding it under pressure during a bear market. I suggested she give most of what she doesn't need away to her kids and a little to her grandchildren. She has always lived below her means, and still does: As in her OAS, CPP, dead husbands pension, and dividends from Imperial Oil stock, way more than cover her expenses. Its great to live in a country with long term stable government.

Assuming Trump loses now. He says, he would put HRC in jail for her email scandals. Do you suppose he has given any thought to the criminal charges he might be facing when this is over. All this crud pouring out is empowering women to come forward. It reminds me of the fallout from Bill Crosby - once a couple of women came forward, then they were many. And Tiger Woods - nothing illegal but same type of fallout. My son has decided the best situation is to be rich and unknown, and the worst is to be poor and famous. I agree with him. Trump is headed rapidly toward poor and (in) famous. I dont believe this helps his brand one bit. There was a move afoot to have his name removed from Trump tower in Toronto, already. My bet is the owners get out of the licensing deal any way they can. See how fast sponsors dumped Tiger and Crosby, and a host of other celebrity endorsers. Me to my Wife: " Honey, I have two nights booked at the Trump hotel downtown".

The debates are useless in normal years, this year, with these candidates, even more so. I don't watch the debates anymore for the same reason I don't vote. I don't want to be counted as supporting the system itself. I do what I wish everyone else would do (be the change you want to see in the world). Imagine if the ratings showed that almost no one watched the debates and imagine if on election day less than a million people showed up to vote. How could these idiots even pretend that they have some kind of mandate to rule? I have a problem with people not voting. I am Canadian and have voted in every Provincial and Federal election since I was 18. Now, in the last several provincial and federal elections I have voted for candidates who will not win, because the major parties disgust me. But my vote is registered. If I lived in New Hampshire I would hold my nose and vote for Gary Johnson. To my mind, not voting is heading in the direction of allowing a full on dictatorship, or theocracy. No matter how bad our governments are, they are nowhere even close to the behaviour of dictatorships such as Saudi, Syria, or North Korea. Now, one person not voting makes no difference but in one example above, only 1 million of 250 million voting will result in a dictatorship. The 60% (600,000) who voted for the party that wins will get massively favoured treatment. If anything this circus in your country may actually get more people to the polling booth than in normal years. And the republicans are handling the situation, finally, under Paul Ryan's (whom I dont like) guidance. Get out of the way of the implosion and keep the democrats from getting a blank cheque. The best government is an accountable one.

He is certainly not a criminal sociopath or terrible crazy person...but he has gone off the deep end with his miserly habits. I've tried to counsel him that you get ahead by doing PROACTIVE things...like investing in the market, buying real estate, businesses, etc. You don't get rich by saving. At least he can't. He makes about $45k a year in a very low cost area of living, so he can certainly spend a bit. I've also counseled him that doing your grocery shopping at the dollar store is not a good idea. Certainly not healthy to eat all the heavily processed foods. However, it is not my place to tell him how to live his live. I offer my opinion from time to time, but that is it. I had a room mate like this in University. Cheap as could be. He would make a pork roast with cabbage and potatoes and reheat it the rest of the week, week after week. Wouldn't go for a coffee at the local coffee shop, and wouldn't order pop with fast food when he was stuck. I sometimes wonder how he made out. And he never, ever, picked up the bill, even for a coffee. Just irritating.

First off I didn't make any comments about you or your mindset. I know you only from your posts and you seem to be an intelligent person. So lets not take it personally. All I am saying is maybe this MMM guy works for a certain type of people and he may have helped them by showing a different path. But there is nothing revolutionary in the strategy and wouldn't benefit the society as a whole.I would much rather focus on the other side of equation i.e. earnings and growth with some risk involved. A good analogy is going long or shorting a stock. You can only short up to zero but are unlimited on the other side. Then why focus on something with limited potential. That doesn't mean you don't monitor your stock for a potential downside.Its just that your energy is focussed on maximum growth and you are not looking for scams ,shady companies.For a novice both would work well but long only is a better approach. The common lifestyle of most people is mind numbing and soul killing, as well as unhealthy in many ways. Cranking things up so they make more money isn't a solution. Rethinking the link between spending and happiness and between freedom and happiness is, imo, likely to have a much bigger effect on life satisfaction. I was taking the mmm approach long before his blog ever existed. I just think he's one of the best teachers of this approach. I think the main insight that he, and others, are trying to communicate is that we live in a world of incredible abundance and surplus. We're vastly richer than most people that ever lived, and than most people currently alive around the world. Even kings and queens of other eras had only few of the comforts that we take for granted today. Yet because of a few psychological phenomenons (hedonistic treadmill, relative value, peer pressure, etc), most people inflate their lifestyles to the breaking point, are stressed about money, keep comparing themselves to others who seem to be doing better (or to fictional characters on TV and in advertisment), and have no control over most of their time/life. I see the opposite of your analogy with long/short. Working a typical job can only get you so far because most of your waking hours for all your prime decades are called for. Being independent has so many more ways to be fulfilling, even if you still work as much. Freedom means having a choice. You seem to have found at least some independence through running a business. This is another common path. But I think the freedom probably matters more than the money. Would you go back to being an employee for more money? The mmm path certainly isn't the only one. But entrepreneurship isn't for everyone either. Liberty, were certainly on the same page. MMM is a gem. I have read 90% of his blog. Much of the stuff I did already. Some I wouldn't bother with. MMM is also a few years younger than me, lives in a dry area, that is much more conducive to some of his activities. I live in TO and value my life too much to commute on city streets on a bicycle. MMM loves to hold TO up as a bad example, and he is right. I am sure many other cities fit this mold but he is most familiar with TO, having grown up in the area, so it makes a convenient example. As for the debate that if everyone lived this way, the economy would collapse - it wouldn't - it would simply readjust. But its a moot point - Most people are caught in the loop of working more in order to afford more things they dont need and it wont change.

This is it. I/we take trips when we want. Daily spending isn't monitored. Some things drive me nuts like phone/inet/mobile data costs. I made myself more accepting of this by buying enough BCE so the dividends pay the entire costs in this arena. And I will get to keep the capital gains. I always pick my entry points to add. Also hold Enbridge - get much more in dividends than the bills will ever be. I/we are frugal but not cheap. That said I have no need to spend on certain things such as expensive dinners out (> 100 per family for dinner). I actually dont enjoy pretentious fancy dinners out. With anything there is a law of diminishing returns. The tripling of cost from a dinner at a roadhouse to a fancy French restaurant dimishes my enjoyment. I dont really like being served hand and foot. We have a lady clean our house once every two weeks. She has been with us for five years, and it prevents alot of household strife. My daughter (7) recently left a bunch of garbage on the floor and wouldn't pick it up knowing our cleaner was coming. Lets just say that we had a little chat on how to treat people with her. Sometimes I get blind spots. I have played guitar nearly 4 yrs., (1.5 hrs. per day) and was using a crappy practice amp. Finally I made myself buy a high quality tube amp and boy did that ever make a difference. These days we buy only gently used vehicles - we are near the airport so there are alot of former rentals available that are one year old. Being in Toronto these cars are gently used as opposed to getting an off rental in Arizona. Both of us use credit cards but avoid carrying any balance over (if we do its accidental), so essentially we pay cash for everything. My portfolio is listed in my signature except I dont think I added Baytex, and Aimia prefs. The position sizes are mostly similar and jockey back and forth for top spot. Some are compounders and 5 are oil and gas related value bets.

Send some of this deflation northwards. You people must have the cheapest groceries in the Western World.

Yeah, its just a buffetism for average investors. He also debated using the results of the Schloss partnership which was the exact antithesis of the punchcard method. Its like market timing. Most people shouldn't engage in it because they get it ass backwards, but there are exceptions among those self trained in buy low/sell high.

Interesting. In my old job I used to get alot of interesting scuttlebut, that was unsolicited, and not insider information. As pertains to Magna International I dealt with lower tier suppliers to Magna, as well as Magna. What I observed was that Magna operates at the cutting edge of technology across their fabrication, and supplier chains. They are the Walmart or Amazon of the automotive sector. They would put the screws to suppliers in various ways. One supplier of some kind of of of little bolts would get calls in the middle of the night to bring parts from Toronto to Loiusville (bring them, not ship them). Its tough being a lower tier supplier in alot of industries. I have never invested on any of this knowledge, mostly because Magna is already priced perfectly.

Interesting topic DTEDJ, I have a question or perhaps a multi-pronged questions: 1) Can a company pension be adjusted to assume lower returns going forward? 2) Are companies/pension funds locked into rates of return negotiated, or promosed some point in the past. Obviously, 7.5% rates are not doable and haven't been for 15 years.

He would likely decide to build the wall out of gold. Hitler promised a VW in every driveway, allegedly. Perhaps Gold plated urinals in every government office?

Thats good. Trump has so many inherent conflicts of interest with his branding business that he will be impeached in the first couple of hours. Buy stocks in anything he isn't involved in so you dont get caught when he avoids paying the bills. Seriously, I think the market will correct after the election, regardless of the outcome. Thats how first terms work, isn't it?

People think that because billionaires are rich that they can be maligned, and there's never anything unjustly said about or done to them, or if there is, that it doesn't matter because they're rich. I think that's ridiculous. We owe our modern way of life to businessmen, including billionaires, and they receive no praise for it. Quite the opposite, and this is a good example. We have here a man with a storied career as a great investor and by all accounts I've seen, a great man. Yet it's already assumed by many here that he's guilty before it's proven in a court of law, and that he has been doing this for many years despite no evidence at all for that. He chose not to settle which indicates he thinks he's innocent, and that's interpreted as potential hubris. Who else in society is treated this way? Name another group of people that is 1) assumed guilty until proven innocent 2) is constantly the scapegoat for the problems created by others (housing bubble, etc) 3) is forced to operate under non-objective laws that in many cases are impossible to know whether you have broken or not (insider trading being one) 4) is penalized for success (anti-trust against Microsoft/Alcoa/Google/etc) Your first statement is totally fair. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Your second paragraph is inaccurate on so many levels. Who else in society is treated this way? A great many people: Minorities in any culture; The poor and disenfranchised everywhere; the disabled; I could go on. Life is more fair for Mr. Cooperman; Mr. Gates; and Page/Brin than it is for many. All that is at stake for Mr. Cooperman is his reputation. For the poor and disenfranchised their very lives and health are often at stake. Usually it is the poor, blacks, immigrants, etc. who are the scapegoats. The rich and successful seldom take it on the chin, as we saw during, and after the financial crisis, and see repeated with regularity. Wells Fargo is a real time example. Ask anyone who needs legal aid if the legal system is fair. The law always caters to the wealthy. A recent example is the spoiled rich Us frat boy who looks like he will walk after a date rape case. Penalized for success: You have really reached with this one. Antitrust regulations exist to protect people from monopolistic situations. Monopolistic situations are not healthy for an economy. It was a very real problem and if not kept in check could be a problem again. Corporations are not benevolent, even ones whose mission statement is "Dont be Evil".

yeah but, I worked 15 years for a government enforcement branch. There is a huge space between between being investigated and being charged. We virtually never prosecuted unless the case was very clear. Whomever at the SEC who has charged Omega would have had to prove their case to the heads of the agency to proceed with charges, given Cooperman's high profile.

Good opportunity for him to quit smoking while he is in prison. Kind of ruins his reputation as a great investor. Why, oh, why?