Gregmal

I think Dalal and Viking are spot on. I'd add that it's amusing watch this whole shit show play out. The really, really, really, smart money sat on the sidelines bitching about the Fed forever. Then, they eventually capitulate, and now they whine that there is no more easy money left... Poor really, really, really smart guys. The economy is fine. Not robust but not terrible. Stocks, if you know what you're looking for, are very cheap and have favorable conditions and a significantly lower tax rate. That's not to say the nerds with the computer programs and algos won't cause havoc from time to time, or the really smart guys throw taper tantrums like today, but the sensible investor should do well going forward.

I find it utterly hilarious how this whole "the market is expensive" rhetoric is basically an advertising product/built in excuse for poorly performing money managers. The same managers who tell you not to pay attention to the indexes anyway... Ironic.

Haven't people been saying this since basically 2011? Why this time? The recovery has been extremely slow and shallow, unlike traditional recoveries, and we've had a bunch of corrections and sector bear markets since (I was just noticing today that the DJ Diversified Industrials is down over 33% from peak) and international markets are already in bear declines, yet everybody seems to talk like it's been only up and to the right since 2009 so we must be getting close to some big thing... You could be right, but it seems hard to time the market like that. I'd rather own good companies that can benefit from dislocation and let them cleverly deploy capital if things go south, and otherwise keep creating value if they don't. But that's just what I'm comfortable with. Liberty, buying great companies when they are on sale and holding them for the long term is a proven winning strategy. I applaud those who are able to execute that strategy. I have, for the most part, been able to ignore ‘macro’ for the past 5 years and it has worked out very well. Having said that, i have been getting more cautious as the year has gone on. The biggest single reason is liquidity. Back when the Fed initiated QE it had a large positive impact on the stock market. Today we have the opposite going on; the Fed is trying to unwind QE. It makes sense to me that it will have a negative impact on the stock market. The Fed is also raising interest rates quite quickly and this is/will also negatively impact the stock market. If the Fed next week backs of future rate hikes and/or slows QE unwind i may become more constructive on stocks moving forward. However, if the Fed raises rates next week and sticks with 3 forecasted rate increases next year and sticks with QE unwind i think stocks will sell off more. In the last 5 years zero interest rates has resulted in pretty much everyone levering up. When the next global recession happens i think there is a good chance it will be as bad as 2008. Europe is a mess and they have no ammo to deal with a recession; their banks are also a mess so there is a very real possible trigger. Japan is also a mess. China is a wild card; they spent like drunken sailors back in 2008 and 2009 but i am not sure they can do the same thing again. Canada has a housing bubble waiting to pop. Of all the regions, i like the US the most but if Europe or Japan or China contract i think it will hit the US as well. There is much too much complacency right now. People have been conditioned by the past 8 years of slow but steady growth. But it has been juiced by an explosion in cheap debt. Now maybe the economies of the world can keep growing debt and continue the party. The only thing i am sure of is we will be getting a recession. When? No idea. All i know is when it hits i do not want to be fully invested in stocks (or bonds yielding +2%). Cash will be king. What will the trigger be (that will be ‘the cause’ of the next recession). No idea. But it will be pretty obvious after the fact. Buffett’s line about we will see who has been swimming naked once the the tide goes out. If i had to guess i would say debt will be the trigger. Here in Canada we have a housing bubble waiting to pop. In the US it sounds like corporate debt is a likely trigger. In Europe the banks are not in great shape (i.e. DB or Italian banks). These things tend to get started in one area and then they morph and get ugly. Viking I love your thought process and rationale and it resonates with me. I do have a few things hopefully you'd care to expand on. 1. Maybe the Canada housing bubble is obvious. I kind of agree. But isn't part of the bubble process widespread euphoria and enthusiasm? I've hardly seen that in the Canadian housing market, especially over the past 3 years. Almost everyone I know is negative there. 2. Why does the next recession need to be a replica if not worse of the GFC? There's plenty of reasons we could have a recession that pales in comparison to 2009. I think 2009 was a once in a lifetime series of events... I mean almost everyone was asleep at the wheel. Whereas the past decade there have been scores of people hoarding cash and waiting for the first 2% decline to scream about the next big one. Recency bias at it's best IMO

Haven't people been saying this since basically 2011? Why this time? The recovery has been extremely slow and shallow, unlike traditional recoveries, and we've had a bunch of corrections and sector bear markets since (I was just noticing today that the DJ Diversified Industrials is down over 33% from peak) and international markets are already in bear declines, yet everybody seems to talk like it's been only up and to the right since 2009 so we must be getting close to some big thing... You could be right, but it seems hard to time the market like that. I'd rather own good companies that can benefit from dislocation and let them cleverly deploy capital if things go south, and otherwise keep creating value if they don't. But that's just what I'm comfortable with. This is spot on. Not to say I didn't find Vikings thoughts to be compelling as well. But I'm in complete agreement that there's great companies everywhere and if you keep a few on the radar you're better suited just building into them. Find something in your wheelhouse and then just play it through the cycles.

Personally I've thought for a while that some things were frothy, and other, not. The froth has by and large been coming out of the market in phases, since about 2015. The big tech names are IMO the last leg of the correction back to more reasonable valuations. That said, this is just another example of why I think indexes are useless. I've heard a million times from people "how could stocks be cheap, SPY is flat for the year", which is a great summation of index mania and the laziness exhibited by most investors when it comes to individual stocks. It is my believe that we are in the beginning stages of a period where fundamental value investors will clean house.

You don't get K-1s from REITs. The experience for a US investor owning REITs is like that of owning any other "normal" business. The REIT itself generlaly just doesn't pay taxes as long as it follows IRS rules. Hmm.... Thank you for letting me know. I wish other MLPs are like this, where dividends are not taxed twice, and no K-1 headaches to worry about! Do you know if REITs tend to go up in a bear market like Utilities? I noticed a lot of REITs, Utilities, Gold miners going up lately. It depends what type, and it is not always the case, but generally speaking, yes. REIT's that own, say, triple net properties with investment grade tenants are more or less bonds, and reacts in similar fashion during times of duress.

Yea the bulk of those definitely pre-date my obsession with investing.

Over the past 10 years, I've seen two kinds of collapses. First is sky high valuation followed by disillusioned shareholders. Second is stock moving lower first, and value investors screaming bargain all the way down, while E continues to deteriorate. I think AAPL is in the second basket. The problem with valuation with P/E is that you have to be damn sure that E is going to go up, not down. AAPL is changing reporting standards. That's a tip off that the next few Es will be bad. It seems AAPL got a whole lot more popular(especially around here) once Warren capitulated and bought in big. You'd think there wasn't even a bear case anymore the past year, which is odd because there was the entire way up when Icahn owned it. Just my lazy guess, but Buffett's buying spree probably put $50 a share on this that wouldn't have been there otherwise... There were people here joyfully buying AAPL way before Buffett got into it. I foolishly wasn't one of them. But in the past even if I wasn't a believer in Apple, I came close to buying a few times just because it was so damn cheap. Of course a stamp from Buffett would move the thesis. Berkshire has never made a mistake with this much capital. I'd venture out to say and Buffett will agree that the Buffett buying spree happened because that extra $50 or more per share should have been there. Wasn't referring to anyone specific in the above. Just an observation. The growth slowdown is obviously nothing new. It just seemed that this worry became less relevant in the past year, coinciding with Buffett buying and the stock going on a tear. I'm a younger dude, but I've never seen Warren fly into a position like he did with this one. I find it interesting to observe from afar.

Over the past 10 years, I've seen two kinds of collapses. First is sky high valuation followed by disillusioned shareholders. Second is stock moving lower first, and value investors screaming bargain all the way down, while E continues to deteriorate. I think AAPL is in the second basket. The problem with valuation with P/E is that you have to be damn sure that E is going to go up, not down. AAPL is changing reporting standards. That's a tip off that the next few Es will be bad. It seems AAPL got a whole lot more popular(especially around here) once Warren capitulated and bought in big. You'd think there wasn't even a bear case anymore the past year, which is odd because there was the entire way up when Icahn owned it. Just my lazy guess, but Buffett's buying spree probably put $50 a share on this that wouldn't have been there otherwise...

Cronos is a total POS. But it's one of the big names and the cost is obviously much lower than CGC or TLRY. These desperation moves are so obvious. I don't know how you get a GROUP of high paid executives together and come to a consensus that THIS is a good use of corporate resources. At least when PEP bought SODA or KO bought GMCR they pretended to have a plan... What's funny is that when it fails, rather than curb it, they'll buy it out completely just to bury it privately...

Maybe not what you're looking for, but most(here, not generally speaking) can probably get a no interest for 12-18 month credit card with a 25-50K limit. Send 25K to a related Paypal account as payment for services. This works around the cash advance fee. You pay about 3% to paypal. Send the proceeds to a bank account. Wire to brokerage account. You can then also margin this money further if desired. After 12-18 months worst case do a balance transfer to another 0 interest promo card. I'm not advocating this either, but if you are looking to leverage your investments with borrowed money...

These are still pretty much all grossly overvalued. That's not to say there isn't a risk fledgling tobacco and alcohol companies don't incinerate a few billion dollars here or there to try to create the appearance they are innovating...

All I'd say is that you don't HAVE TO do anything. Don't let them boss you around. That's bullshit. If they are being difficult then you are wasting your time negotiating in good faith. I'll leave you an example. I've been invested in a company that has kind of had a history of shareholder neglect. Over the past several years, this company has been disingenuously egging on it's largest shareholder, largely because the shareholder feels they aren't doing their jobs. There have been multiple proxy fights, and a whole bunch of other nonsense. The entire time, management has been boasting about wanting to buy back the activist shareholder's position in the company. After several years of poor results, the shareholder finally said "ok, make me an offer". What did they do? They made a below market offer and then put out a presentation accusing the shareholder of being desperate and looking for greenmail...Typical scumbag move. So my advice to you; don't give them anything. Just ask them to make an offer, with the ability for you to turn it on them. Otherwise, just let them dig their own grave, and document everything through your lawyers.

I've seen Costco mentioned a few times and actually concur. I'm not positive about their wine, so I'll take others at their word here, but do know that Costco liquor is a sensational bargain. Their vodka is essentially Gray Goose for 1/3 the price, and I was shocked to find out that the Kirkland Scotch is Macallan 18 just private label. More or less Costco has a contract with Macallan where they buy the excess, and that is then sold as Kirkland 18. You can pay $160 for the Macallan, or $60 for Kirkland...

Just my 2c First, in order to get a fair offer, reject the 30K. That's terrible. Then, have your attorney ask them to make another offer, but with one condition, which will almost always ensure you are getting a fair offer... The condition is, whatever their offer is, if you don't like it, you can turn around and buy them out at that price. Second, in relation to the business... Did the owner work there as well, or was this passive? If the business was passive prior, depending upon where your gf is in life, there may be an even bigger opportunity to acquire the business and then focus on running it full time, which could significantly cut salary and wage expenses, plus probably fine tune other expenses...The gross profit gives you quite a bit to work with.

My go to's are: Gnarly Head- especially the 1924 red mixes, but all are pretty decent Hermann Wiemer Riesling Federalist Cab All are $20 or less per bottle As for investing, check out futures or pre-arrivals.

I saw this and actually found it quite amusing. No, not the content itself. But rather watching it and trying to figure out how many dozens of people, most likely making six figures plus, spent what was likely millions of dollars of corporate resources, and THIS is what they came up with? Holy incompetence! If this isn't proof that anybody can make a lot of money, than I don't know what is. I can't see how their entire team working on this isn't fired because the fact that this ENTIRE thing got this far means that EVERY ONE OF THEM has questionable judgment. As for D&G itself, IDK, I've never been a fan of their style, although I've never been a fan of any brand you pay 10x or more of the normal price for an every day item. I've bought Ferragamo shoes and Burberry wallets, and frankly they suck compared to my $65 New Balance shoes and $35 I forget the brand wallet. Only crazy expensive item I've found actually worth the tag relative to it's cheaper competitors are Yeti coolers.

This is so friggin true it's cringe worthy. It's the same thing I notice at VIC and other places as well. Some of these numb nuts get so wrapped up on crunching every number down to what is ultimately meaningless information, and compound that by scaring themselves into paralysis by overestimating the likelihood of every risk. It's amusing to watch sometimes. My favorite writeup I think I've seen in the past few years was Torico's VRX pitch last year. Drove the pencil and calculator crowd nuts, got low ratings, and then promptly crushed the returns of all those "well thought out", formulaic pitches you see all over the place.

This is a sham. Despite what is claimed, I guarantee he doesn’t manage a hedge fund. These are SMA’s.

Thanks for the article. This guy is a world class tard... I bet you he went to a nice school and has an MBA too.

Maybe I’m missing something but given the name of his site and blog this seems like more of a “product” selling platform than a real money management operation. Don’t judge a book by its cover, maybe, but I would never think putting money with a firm called optionseller.com or whatever was prudent. This guy got his Rolex selling product and that product blew up. Not an uncommon story on the street.

But why would it be? IIRC that was also the argument the Winklevoss dudes used and also arrived at roughly a $350K BTC price. I have no idea, ask SharperDingaan, he is the one who used this weird equivalence to argue that BTC was overpriced.

Home Depot is just plainly a great business. A chimpanzee could run it, with outsized returns. FFH IMO is a business that is what you make of it, with a very astute manager. The problem is, even great managers can make mistakes and be wrong. I don't know how you can f*ck up Home Depot...

I personally feel like if everyone says "recession" enough, it will force one to happen. Kind of like Beetlejuice. Same shit's been going on with auto now for half a decade...

A tragedy! https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-stormy-daniels-attorney--reportedly-arrested-for-alleged-domestic-violence.html