Gregmal

He was definitely right about KO and has also been right about quite a bit during his current spat with Consolidated Tomoka. His problem is that he comes off as all or nothing and sometimes over the top/too extreme in his negativity. This turns a lot of people off. Probably more so than the performance issues. Frankly if you are investing in a fund like Wintergreen, you shouldn't expect to be beating the S&P. But neither should someone whom buys a CD. One look at his portfolio will tell you he's not chasing the indexes.

This is something I'd want to like. As long as it is not filled with stuff about "the next marijuana millionaire" etc. If anyone here recommends it I'll probably grab a copy.

This is probably the most overlooked yet relevant thing. Further if you look at guys whom supposedly beat the indexes regularly, ie a Klarman, they definitely have a "dgaf" approach as to what others think and their portfolios are rather unconventional. Second, they already have their financial future's taken care of.

Politically correct, ignorant, whatever, all are the labelled cost of having an opinion these days. Opinions are not fact, they can be right or wrong, nonetheless its just an outside observation the I have found to have some merit, IMO. There's an attitude prevalent amongst many Americans in today's day(not just relating to investments btw) and age which I best describe as "do it for me". I have found, again solely from my own experience, the Canadian mentality is different. I guess if we call it "Canadian conservatism" its more acceptable. Hedge fund I guess can be defined differently, although I suppose my reference was more in relation to broader investment management. From my little perch here in America, I have no problem saying that I've found Canadians to be savvier and more financially cognizant than my fellow Americans. If I offend anyone north of the boarder with this sweeping generalization, I apologize.

I remember hearing him say something along the lines of "if I could snap up 500,000 single family homes in one order I would; it just doesn't work like that though". Granted when you have money its not as much of a challenge, but between the time and the fees necessary to make a large enough investment he probably would have just been better off buying stocks. Which is what he did.

Well, this definitely isnt politically correct to say. It is definitely a broad scale, sweeping generalization, but from my own experience I've found the average Canadian to be far more intelligent and fiscally responsible than the average American. Americans love to have everyone else do everything for them. And paying someone else to do it makes a lot of people feel special.

So what's the bias or fake news here? The article points out the fact that he was practicing in back of the car. I'd relate to your sentiment if they knocked him for it, but they didn't. Newsworthy? no. Fake? no. You read this, or any of the other pieces on the same thing and don't see it as rife with negative connotation? The random Twitter quotes? Presenting him as "weird" or some sort of buffoon for practicing a speech? Why is this is even a headline. Surprisingly, I have noticed a different tone in a lot of the stuff put out today after last nights speech. That doesn't negate the fact that for the past year the media has gone so far out of their way to undermine and make him look bad. The Nazi Germany comparisons? Seriously? In fact this, more than anything else in my opinion is what put Trump over the top with the election. There were many people who were just so sick and tired of the media doing everything it could to will Clinton into office. The same media the had Kyrie Irving's "the world is flat" quote as front page news recently. These guys are a bunch of clowns and its amusing that they continue to be perplexed as to why they are hated and no longer allowed to do big boy jobs; like access the president.

We want to talk about fake news/media bias? http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html How exactly is this newsworthy, or necessarily something to present as "weird".

Thats true, and quite fine. What is trite is that there is a huge double standard with the media, and with a lot of folks out there. A lot of people didn't vote for Obama yet you didn't see riots and widescale protests either time he was elected. Now the shoe is on the other foot and there is no shortage and people whining and crying about the injustices of "they didn't get their way". Trump comes in and you already have people licking their chops to call him a phony and a fraud for not doing what he said he was going to do. Then, unlike the modern day politician, he starts doing, exactly what he said he was going to do, and people are flabbergasted at the audacity of what he's doing. And no, I'm not even talking about the moronic, non educated silver spoon Hollywood types like Katy Perry, Scarlet Johanssen and Madonna. You can see examples of this here.

Outside the fact that the investments have been successful to date, I really do question the purity of the recent bullishness on AAPL and the airlines. Not because they aren't good investment(I've owned both myself) but simply the timing. I really feel like the guy just has so much cash he doesn't know what to do with that maybe he's stretching his parameters to justify new investments. I mean the airline consolidation story has been going on for nearly half a decade; why now? AAPL has been cheap and on the radar forever as well. He refuses to pay a dividend and is on record regarding what his take is on buybacks(although even this seems to be getting slowly walked back of late). Must be a nice problem to have.

Welcome, and great post. I wouldn't say I disagree entirely although I'm still moderately invested. What I have seen, especially since the election, is that complete and utter dog shit is going bananas. For no reason whatsoever. Pure mania (cough TSLA) I'm a believer that one should always have a smaller core of decent large cap companies that present "relative value" solely because no one really knows where the market will end up and being entirely in cash or net short is basically a gamble(IMO). Companies like GM, AGN, CSCO, T, etc. The truth is this environment can go on longer than anyone expects. There were plenty in 2011-12 who were full blown bears. 5 years later and look where things are. But all in all, I'd concur with most of your sentiment. Looking for an undervalued compounder in this environment; yea right, good luck. Maybe in the oil/material names, but thats it.

It would seem that if nothing else this is/was a good opportunity to put on a some sort of arb/pair trade.

Wow. Great thought provoking stuff. I think a separate tangent can take us to the debate of emotion vs the collection psychological efforts of mass emotions. By this I am referring to the aggregate emotions of crowds that ultimately create market dislocations. You have investments that people feel good about. Investments people buy because others are buying. Investments because people are convinced they will only go up. Think about VRX and the roller coaster. Guys like Chanos were tooting the short horn in the $60s. The stock chugged along for years to a high north of $250. Now, the pendulum has swung so far back the other way, people are having a hard time ponying up anything more than a fire sale liquidation number. Without getting into the fundamental calamity of the VRX story, the psychology behind what drove the stock was incredible. Kind of like a current AMZN or TSLA.

Funny, but deriving from the same topic, I remember when there was some uproar over American Brian Gionta being named captain of the Canadians specifically because he didnt speak French. So I'd imagine the bar is a wee bit higher for PM.

Well, DT is already ruining our lives. In response to his order, Iran has implemented their own sanctions including travel bans for American citizens. Shucks. Guess I'm going to have to change my vacation plans...

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever... Are you like a dumbass? Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens. *I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump... Just to further add to the gun ownership thread!!! What would the response be to people who want to own guns to protect themselves/property? Maybe members of this board don't know or appreciate...but there are areas of America where law enforcement can't/won't protect the citizens. I know this for a fact as I live in one of those areas...What would you do about Detroit? I would posit that citizens have the right to protect themselves if the police can't or won't. Yes but obviously cities tend to be liberal and gun violence happens more in cities but alas, there is no correlation! On a serious note, cities with very harsh gun laws(the same ones whom happen to be super violent, and super liberal) which prohibit law abiding citizens also tend to have ineffective law enforcement as you mentioned. Taking away guns doesn't stop the criminals, whom will have guns whether they are legal or not. But yea, keep punishing those who follow the rules. Tax those who work for a living to give to those who don't. Raise insurance premiums on younger people who are healthy to subsidize older people who aren't. Keep all the borders open to whomever wants to rumble on in, while on the other hand people who go through the proper channels wait 10-15 yeas for citizenship... The best is that there is not even really an attempt to justify these things from the people whom support them. Instead just some blanket buzz word gets thrown back at you; like "racist" or "alt-right", etc.

I have long been an admirer of Canada and even considered potentially moving there under various circumstances(none having to do with politics). The issue when comparing to the US is its an apples and oranges situation. Canada has not made enemies everywhere on Earth by constantly meddling in everyone's business. Canada does not have a neighbor to the south who's people regularly trespass(in many cases violently, and often with contraband) and then blow out babies with no intention of paying a penny. Canada, because it has not really made enemies the way the US has, does not have to worry to the same extent about people coming into the country and seeking to annihilate it's citizens for no good reason. I would also probably gander that the education system in Canada (pre-university) is worlds better; which is also partially the reason its citizens happen to be more insightful and productive, although thats just my opinion. I do some business with folks in Vancouver/BC and the long running joke is that the only difference between BC and California is that BC basically offers everything you'd like about California, without much of the shit you wouldn't. I kind of feel this applies to Canada vs the US as well.

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever... Are you like a dumbass? Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens. *I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump...

The problem down here(in the US), is that the lower middle/middle/upper middle class fight for themselves while the lower/upper class play politics. On one end of the liberal spectrum, you've got the have nots who are entirely reliant of handouts. This is the largest demographic, period. Then on the upper end you have the "haves" who've already made their money and are well set, are more so now sanctimonious and all about philanthropy/seeking some twisted greater good. I've always thought Canada had a slightly better balance, but all over it seems the hand out crowd is taking over.

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

I would also add that while you do need a sponsor for the 7, your state can sponsor you if you are just looking for a 65. In total it's less than $500.

The easiest way, and it's almost guaranteed if you can humble yourself for a few months, is finding any old small name retail brokerage/advisory office. They'll likely pay you a couple hundred bucks a week and you'll have to cold call for 8 hours a day, not fun... But they'll sponsor you, and in most cases pay for your testing and materials and then once you have the license you can pretty much go anywhere. The other way is with a larger name, similar to what you mentioned. But they are more selective and typically like a specific type of resume (IE brand name school, BA in finance, several years minimum experience, etc). This is harder and kind of beats around the bush. Basically the financial food chain works like this for those of us who don't have Ivy League MBAs and an inside track on an investment banking job, at least to one seeking out basic securities licenses. Smaller bucket shops hire and license anything that has a pulse. Throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Bigger firms take the cream of the crop. They don't hire 1/10th of the number the smaller firms do because they essentially just wait til the smaller firms license people and then poach them; saving obvious expenses and headaches that come with training. Once you have your license however, then its on you and if you are cut out for it you can make a living at either type of firm. If you are just looking to manage moderate amounts of money and have a low-mid 5-figure income you are probably better suited using a firm that specializes in umbrella/OSJ structures.

Here you go. Hope this helps https://www.kaplanfinancial.com/securities/series-7-var-1/ SecuritiesPro™ QBank (Online + Download) $124.50 Add to Cart Practice your test taking skills and test your knowledge with thousands of exam-focused questions and solutions. This interactive QBank allows you to build personalized exams based on length and topic of your choice and features unlimited exam attempts that are randomly generated each time. The Qbank also gives you the ability to: Complete the exams online or print them out to study on the go. Review your performance on previously taken exams. Track time spent on a question and/or exam. Search for specific questions within your QBank. Create personal notes and bookmarks on questions for future reference. Build weighted mock exams to provide a comprehensive test review of all material. *The online access period for your Qbank course is 5 months. An additional five months may be purchased at $49. Please call or email our student support center to request this extension.

The best, hands down, is Kaplan. I have taken the 7, 24, 63, and 65. The books are ok but it's basically all the same stuff regardless. The secret to passing the test(outside of the obvious answer:knowing the material!) is to be familiar with the format. You can buy the Kaplan online practice test generator service for a couple hundred bucks. It is well worth it. If you already have a decent understanding of industry related stuff, just taking the practice tests, with the option to have the correct answer and explanation shown after you answer the question, 2-3 times a days will have you ready to pass the real one in a couple weeks. The test is shuffled each time as well and there are like 10,000 questions so its not just straight memorization.

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak. It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far. This is nonsense. Maybe in some aspects for Trump I'd agree, but in relation to Mexico, its utterly absurd. The same could be said about Canada. The difference is you don't have record numbers of Canadians running over the border, joining gangs, committing crimes, and filling up your already over crowded prisons. Mexico is definitely a problem. Their entire country is run by cartels and their government is corrupt. It's in a lot of ways similar to Chicago. Another small, poor area I'm sure many think Trump is bullying. What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with.