Gregmal

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes. And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect. Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers". So basically screw that democracy thing. Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware. Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide! Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count. People who do not contribute should not be dictating the rules(which are a derivative of those elected to office) of the land and especially not be influencing the implementation of hardships upon those who are net creators or contributors. So its great and all that the Buffetts and Zuckerbergs of the world think "giving" more is a grand old idea. Its also not shocking that the have nots will support anything in which they "get" more. The ones getting royally effed are the middle class in between. Who are now consistently squeezed out of more and more; with the end game being the greater divide and ensuing class warfare in which those chasing the American Dream are cannibalized by those living "their" own versions of it.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes. And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect. Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet? Dude, seriously? I mean I'm down with everyone to nail the media to the wall. Ever since they decided to move news from a loss leader to a profit center it has gone to shit. It no longer news. It's entertainment. It's reality TV Washington edition. There is no more Walter Cronkite. That era is is over. But the whole thing begin slanted against Trump really? How did he even get to this point? Why didn't the media nail his ass to the wall for the million outrageous and ridiculous things he said and did. Which reporter stepped up and put him in his place the way he deserves to be? None. Why was he allowed to call into shows of the can or wherever? Cause they're not doing their job. Everyone is blowing up about Donna Brazile being a partisan. The former chairwoman of the DNC is a partisan. What a shock! CNN also hired Corey Lewandowski. I'm guessing he's gonna be fair, balanced, and full of journalistic integrity. He'll never leak anything to Trump. What a joke! And the leaked emails? I've looked at a lot of them. They're actually a pretty boring depiction of a highly motivated high powered organization that is proceeding is a deliberated and highly calculated way towards a goal. Since when is that a bad thing? I'd like my leaders when faced with big and complex problems to move in a calculated and deliberated way, not shoot from the hip. Trump's entire rise was because he completely played the media for free attention largely because they are too stupid, biased, and ratings hungry to notice. Every outrageous or deplorable thing DT has said has been spam blasted ad nauseam because these clowns think they are successfully bashing him, getting tons of clicks/views, and bringing him down when all its done is drive his campaign without him actually having to spend. The HRC campaign has sat by and at best encouraged this, or at worst, been working with the media to manipulate the narrative(something now being substantiated by emails). The fact that her campaign is now throwing the FBI under the bus because they are doing their jobs does nothing more than highlight what an act it all is; mainly because they sat there and praised these same people 2 months ago when they got what they wanted from them.

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet?

The problem is that this has been true for a long time and for whatever reason, Bauer has just never worked out for anyone. Hockey is growing, especially in the US. The margins shouldn't be terrible. Yet with Bauer, my outside perspective is that they've made too many poor acquisitions that weren't really necessary and if anything diminished their brand. Nike couldn't even make them work.

Say what you will but this is what I like about Trump. Most politicians would have coughed up the money because 1) Its not theirs 2) They don't want a bad publicity. Not Donald. He saw the charge he didn't like and now this guy has to explain. Very powerful message and these idiots at WaPo think they landed a scoop. If you've agreed to pay x amount for a product or service provided and then reneg on that obligation, what does that say about you? If the product is defective only a fool(or someone using money that isnt theirs) would pay for it.

I've never owned FFH for an extended period of time mainly because I disagree with his macro outlook, and when I've agreed there just seem to be better bets out there. Had nothing to with his investing acumen. Watsa seems to suffer from the same thing a lot of fund managers do, and thats an inability to reverse course when they're clearly on the wrong one. It's what makes somebody like Tepper head and shoulders above everyone else. Guy isn't afraid to do an immediate reversal if his gut tells him thats where the trend is. How somebody like Watsa, Chanos or Faber have been making bearish bets now for over half a decade is at this point just plain stubborn. That said, his current strategy isn't unheard of. Quite a few PMs I know do the same thing when overwhelmingly bearish with their macro outlook. Diversify, hold big portions of cash, and then make smaller bets on real long shots figuring if you're wrong(on a macro basis) they tend to do extremely well in a bull market, if your bearish inclination is correct, the bulk of your portfolio is already adequately positioned.

Maybe its different in Detroit but I've actually seen and used this kind of a strategy as leverage in transactions like the one you described. You simply argue that the tax rate is too high and are bearing substantial risk in taking on the property. You also point out that every month that goes by thats another "x amount" of carry cost being eaten by the seller so his best bet is to get it taken off his hands asap, even if it s at a great discount. If he holds these another year his $42k ask is now equivalent to 34k. The key however is to know the local real estate market and what the process is for appeals, which obviously includes the likelihood of getting it adjusted in your favor. Where I am, you generally just have to show the market value contradicts the assessment, in which case a contract of sale will do the trick. That should then theoretically take your assessed value down from 42k per, to 42k for both, likely cutting the tax bill in half.

Still wouldn't make me vote for him... Which is grand and all, however I'm not sure what that has to do with the post you referenced or the title of the thread. The thread topic is "How would you hedge a Trump win on Nov 8". To which, perhaps going long the one sector that has been slammed at every turn by Clinton and the Dems would make sense given the high correlation between the two.

Saw a headline which read something along the lines of "Clinton: Americans deserve full and complete facts". Oh boy. Really Hillary? Well you could have given them to us a long, long time ago instead of hiding and deleting them. This woman is just too much. What a riot.

Not that I would buy it, but it seems the biotech ETFs and some specific names tend to rally when ever Trump gains some momentum.

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn. The Staples/Office Depot was literally the gold standard for moronic government intervention. If any candidate needed any example of why politicians should not be allowed to make business or economic decisions, this was a great example. Amazon will now put both of them out of business.

Hey Greg; I don't know if you saw this post on another thread by Liberty but the YouTube video is well worth watching. I'm still jaded about the political process & the lack of humanity exhibited (AKA douchebaggery) by the vast majority of our so called business & political leaders but the video made it a tiny bit understandable (if you buy into it which I did...) Hilarious and quite accurate. Hadn't seen it but thanks. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

300+ million losers, though! Such is the reality of life as a member of the non ruling class.

Not to single out Mr. Gibbons but this is in a nutshell, exactly what the case against Buffett has become. There is no effort to be objective. Nothing is surprising anymore because it all fits the same narrative. Just like Mr. Buffett, Mr. Gibbons has decided that "He's With Her"... and then retroactively crafts opinions around that focal point. I honestly can't even believe a sane and rational person would contend that WJC and Melania Trump would have even remotely similar effects of the presidency of their spouses. When HRC was under investigation, WJC was holding back alley meetings with the attorney general for God's sake. Whereas the most Melania has ever done(not that she'd have much use anyway) is smile and wave at a crowd... There is so much hypocrisy and everything these days is stuffed with an agenda. It's completely unavoidable. Elizabeth Warren made a fortune scamming the little guy. She was a Republican too, up until '97 if I remember correctly. Then she decided her pockets were fat enough, and now has an entire platform based off of criticizing people who "rip off the little guy". So many of these guys use the system and then the second they've made it, immediately make it their goal to turn around and make it even harder for the next guy to get there. There is an excellent interview with Lee Cooperman where he accurately points out, that in 2012, for the first time ever, Mitt Romney was lambasted for his wealth. As if being successful was now wrong. And yet, fast forward to this election, where one candidate openly brags, exaggerates and lies about how wealthy he is, and the other one criticizes his wealth while making 11,000,000 a year giving "speeches". Mr. Buffett used to be America's watch dog and voice of reason. Now it seems everything from him either has an agenda or some political spin to it. Geez, look at how he handled things with Coca Cola. So unfortunately for most Americans, there won't be a real winner next month.

Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds. Ah, I see where you're coming from. Like you shouldn't vote for Trump because Melania isn't smart enough to know that plagiarizing a convention speech is a bad idea, and we don't want someone that stupid in the oval office. There is a fairly rational case that one shouldn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. But implying that Melania Trump will have even a fraction of the power/authority WJC would in the same situation is pretty outlandish.

Depends entirely on the investment. Some large cap low beta names I'll lever up as much as the heart is content via ITM leaps without risking a margin call or even a substantial outlay. If I'm bullish on GM I'd rather control 2,000 shares via a $25 LEAP costing $16,000 and not pay taxes on the dividend vs put down $66,000 using cash or a margin account. Of course this varies depending on ones risk tolerance but if you can get comfortable with the business and grasp which general ballpark we're in relative to the cycle it's not really all the risky.

Hillary Clinton is a sexual predator? Just out of curiosity, what are you referencing here? Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds.

Maybe a hair off topic, but I don't for a second blame Trump for not releasing his return right now. And Buffett, being a guy who is clearly smart enough to read between the lines and definitely capable of sizing up the current situation, shouldn't fault Trump either. But again, pushing his pro Clinton agenda, advocates it anyway. Can you honestly say it s a wise business, or more importantly personal choice for Trump to release his taxes in this environment? Good Ole Grampa Buffett gets praised for releasing a tax return because he's on the same side as all the major news outlets. It shouldn't take a genius to understand that should Trump release his returns, everyone, ranging from some small time j/o with the slightest understanding of tax law, all the way up to the most heralded forensic accounting firms (probably put on task with dollars coming from the Super PACs/Mark Cubans of the world) would immediately start dissecting his release with the full intention of trying to "find" some sort of evidence that would harm him, or at the very least, insinuate he's doing something awful and un-American. So that then begs the question, if you were Trump, why would you release your return? There is literally NO benefit to doing so. Oh, I understand that it's better for Trump to not be transparent. But is it a good thing? He's running for president. Buffett isn't. All presidential candidates release their tax records. Trump said many times in print and on camera that he would release his tax records. He's attacked others in the past for not releasing their tax records. So if he's not releasing them, it makes all the sense in the world that he's going to look like a liar and a hypocrite and people will think that he has something to hide (and apparently he did, based on the 1995 leaked document -- but I wonder what else is in the rest?). Should people just say: "Oh, it's better for him not to release them, because there could be embarrassing stuff in there. Fair enough, we don't want to know and won't hold it against him, he can play by different rules." You think republicans aren't scrutinizing the tax records of democrats and that Fox News and talk radio and a thousands websites wouldn't be all over things if there was something scandalous in these documents? Scrutiny comes with running for office, and the highest scrutiny goes for the highest, most high-profile office in the world. Trump just likes to have his cake and eat it too. I'm going to run for president, but I don't want to be held to the same standards as other presidential candidates. Well, it blew up in his face; maybe he shouldn't have been sexually assaulting women all these years and then telling his campaign not to do opposition research... What are the odds that there isn't some security camera footage of him grabbing a woman against her will somewhere..? Trump is a horrible hypocrite. Possibly the worst of anyone. A direct contrast to the message he's trying to promote. Frankly, this entire election sucks. Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again. Fortunately, as Buffett himself has said, regardless of who wins, America will go on and the quality of life will continue to get better for everyone. So I suppose with Buffett, the disappointment here more so related to him being the gold standard of wisdom for decades, and now being just like everyone else; a puppet for propaganda and hypocritical rhetoric.

Maybe a hair off topic, but I don't for a second blame Trump for not releasing his return right now. And Buffett, being a guy who is clearly smart enough to read between the lines and definitely capable of sizing up the current situation, shouldn't fault Trump either. But again, pushing his pro Clinton agenda, advocates it anyway. Can you honestly say it s a wise business, or more importantly personal choice for Trump to release his taxes in this environment? Good Ole Grampa Buffett gets praised for releasing a tax return because he's on the same side as all the major news outlets. It shouldn't take a genius to understand that should Trump release his returns, everyone, ranging from some small time j/o with the slightest understanding of tax law, all the way up to the most heralded forensic accounting firms (probably put on task with dollars coming from the Super PACs/Mark Cubans of the world) would immediately start dissecting his release with the full intention of trying to "find" some sort of evidence that would harm him, or at the very least, insinuate he's doing something awful and un-American. So that then begs the question, if you were Trump, why would you release your return? There is literally NO benefit to doing so.

You do know that he decided at a relatively young age to give away his fortune? Munger confirmed it. I believe it's Andrew Carnegie's influence. If this was some vanity gesture to secure a legacy and be popular, you think he'd be giving it to someone else's foundation without putting his name on it and wouldn't do a bunch of high profile stuff in his name while he's alive to bask in the glory rather than compound as long as he can to give as much as possible? The situation has gotten a lot more extreme over the past 10-15 years when it comes the issue that Buffett is highlighting, which can explain why he's been more vocal about it. The rise of the financial sector and hedge funds and high paid executives has a lot to do with it. Before the 80s this world used to be very different -- read up on the shocking excesses of the time and they seem super quaint. But if you read his letters and interviews, Buffett has pretty much spent his whole life criticizing the financial sector and overpaid executives and bankers who add little value yet have carved themselves preferential treatment. This is just in line with his long-term views. But anyway, you didn't say it was unfair or fair. But if you do believe it is unfair for some of the mega-rich to pay 15% on their income while much, much poorer people pay much higher rates, then maybe you disagree with Buffett's way of trying to fix the situation. That's all right. But I think maybe you can understand that there's substance behind his position, and that he's genuinely trying to correct a situation that he sees as unfair and damaging to the United States, and he isn't just playing games for whatever end. Anyway, if Buffett is such scum to some of the posters here, I'd love to be able to shine some light on their lives to see how they fare in comparison... Quite contrarily it would seem, I actually have great admiration for the guy. He's a legend and as far as what he's done, all the praise is warranted. Should Tepper, Loeb, etc, be taxed at 15%. IDK. Do they need the extra money? Absolutely not. Its a sticky situation and my only issue is that Buffett had generally been one to call it as he saw it. Over the past decade he seems to consistently support a more liberal agenda(not even trying to get into politics here). Thus, IMO what I respect about an individual is their ability to give their 2 cents(2 cents that is consistent with who they are) without a bias or clear, predictable agenda. Ask Lizzie Warren what she thinks about ANY ceo and I'm sure its got a negative slant to it. That's the predicatable bias I'm referring to and regarding his stance on taxes, Buffett comes off as someone who's just trying to be pro-Clinton in a not so roundabout way. So not to rehash already made arguments, being against nepotism and then naming your son, the next in line, or deriding a candidate for using the same tax system you've used, to his advantage, simply because you would like to see the other candidate elected, is massively hypocritical. Maybe I'm mistaking his overly philanthropic and generally (of late) liberal leanings as his desire to polish his legacy. Its possible.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have... Keep making stuff up if it makes you feel better and helps you support your ideological position. Buffett isn't saying this stuff to save a few millions or to be popular (this is actually the main thing that I see him criticized for, especially by his peers in the financial world who are worried about themselves). He thinks it's better for the country and for the system if the mega-rich who get favored treatment (15% carried interest, etc) were made to pay rates similar to other people. Maybe that seems unfair to you and you think they should keep their lower rates than everyone else despite being richer than everyone else, but don't pretend like Buffett's whole life has been a sham just so he could in his old age take positions like this. Taxes have been much higher than they are now during Buffett's life and it never stopped him from doing business. I'm sure you also view the fact that Buffett is giving all his money to charity and has convinced tons of other billionaires to do the same as some kind of nefarious scheme... Not quite sure what is "made up". Its well documented, even in this thread the many ways in which Buffett has become a major hypocrite over the past decade or so. I have no interest one way or the other in the carried interest debate as it does not effect me. I have never said it is unfair but it is quite cute of you to put words in my mouth to prop up your argument. If you don't think Buffett is far more aware of his "popularity" and legacy now than he was 20-30 years ago, then thats fine. But you are wrong. In fact, your last point about Buffett giving away his fortune pretty much solidifies my stance.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have...

Spot on TXvestor. More or less the middle class is being eaten alive. My definition of middle class is probably a little more liberal than most for simplifications sake, but unless you are uber wealthy(8 figure NW and up) or super reliant on "the system"(under 40-50k/year AI), you are pretty much at the mercy of the system. The 8 figure NW people simply dictate the rules, while the lower end of the spectrum simply doesnt care and continues to vote as instructed provided they continue to get thrown their proverbial bone.

The entire system is skewed to benefit the ruling class. The few that are in live by an entirely different set of rules as the rest of the country. How long do you think a congressman waits in line at the DMV? How long do you think Buffett waits on hold if he has an issue with the IRS. How does wealthy rapper caught with a dozen assault rifles and drugs get 1-2 years and 22 year old no name minority caught with a gram gets jail plus probation for 5 years? There's people in jail for minor mishandling of classified information. Meanwhile Hilary gets off because she was simply careless but not deliberate? I probably couldn't even get out of a traffic ticket using an excuse like that.. yet this woman is running for president! Trump is 100% right in pointing out that its because of career politicians like HRC that the system is the way it is. And Buffett, being one of the few who benefit greatly, obviously is a proponent of it continuing. The most ironic aspects of the election to me where millennial favorite Bernie Sanders revealing that lowly ole champion of little guy made over 200k last year and paid less taxes "than his secretary".(that's the saying right?) Then you have career politicians, WJC and HRC, with 100,000,000 net worths. How exactly does one accumulate so much wealth on a civil servants wage? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Ted Cruz? Paul Ryan? Please explain this to me? And yet still, these same folks want to vilify the Romneys and the Trumps of the world who have built(and in some cases destroyed) their wealth largely taking risks, in the public eye. The level of hypocrisy is so stunning.