clutch

muscleman, I hope that you - by my biased quoting here - can see, that this line of posting is counter productive, for the CoBF members on here. If persons active here on CoBF can't post here on CoBF about their losses, and their afterwards reasonings related to that - [without being called out on CoBF this way, like you have done here], we [us, here at CoBF] will all most likely fare less well going forward. The wisdom of the losses [investing failures] are as precious as the wisdom of the gains [investing succeses]. - - - o 0 o - - - Please, be nice. I'd rather not take any "wisdom" from anyone who cannot take a loss and is afraid of being called out on an online forum.

You can buy bitcoin and ether with a cc on Coinbase. Or you can link your bank account. Or you can use cash at a bitcoin ATM, there is probably one near you. I think that's incredibly dangerous given the majority of what's driving this insanity is the retail investor. Getting rich quick. Allowing people to speculate with high interest, non secured credit is mind boggling. You can deposit money into online casino / betting sites with a credit card. What's the difference? :P

Splitting hairs but... One could argue that people are forced to value the dollar now because people in the past *wanted* to set up the financial system in a particular way. (I guess my point is that nothing is forced upon on people except the nature... Although we have to put up with our self-imposed force from the past) No. If you don't use dollars you will be sent to prison today, not in the past. The IRS still demands dollars. I guess you could choose to accept prison, but you will very much be forced to go there if you demand to pay your taxes in bitcoins. You missed my point. I didn't say anything about whether you are free to not use dollars.

Splitting hairs but... One could argue that people are forced to value the dollar now because people in the past *wanted* to set up the financial system in a particular way. (I guess my point is that nothing is forced upon on people except the nature... Although we have to put up with our self-imposed force from the past)

I'm sure people preferred exchanging sacs of grain instead of money at some point in time...

But can't you argue that these activities will always exist and hence the usefulness of cryptocurrency?

I wanted to press you on this since you started this topic... First of all, this is a fact (not a consensus!): Indexing will generate market-average returns. Given this fact and that overall market valuation is high (which implies that the expected market-average returns would be low), what should an investor do? I see two conclusions: 1) Since the overall market valuation is high, you should pick stocks that are undervalued instead of indexing. 2) Since the overall market valuation is high and because stock picking is hard, you should invest in other assets (or just sit on cash). Are you advocating any of these two, or something else?

Well, if you seek alpha, you should never index, regardless of valuations. It's really simple. Indexing -> your return = market average, therefore alpha = 0. If one thinks indexing is moronic because of market valuations, what's the alternative for non-stock-pickers? Cash? Canadian real estate? maybe Bitcoin?? ;D

All excellent points.

It's not so clear. Imagine a world where there are 100 people and only one person is an active market participant. The rest of 99 people follows this person's capital allocation a la "indexing". Is this equivalent to a bubble in the overall market? The percentage of people participating doesn't matter, if those 99 people are indexing because they heard some billionaire tell them to do so without regard to the fundamentals is that any different than any other bubble we have had, its easy to tell people to index when we are in a bull market. Bubbles will be created only in the assets with greatest capital allocations made by the sole investor. But that does not equate to the entire market being in a bubble. For instance, market-cap based indexing will lead to bubbles in the highest market-cap stocks. Not all stocks will be in the bubble territory. In fact, it will lead to more neglected stocks being neglected, which actually could present more opportunities for active investors. If I buy an index of cypto's that doesn't make cypto's any less of a bubble. Whether I buy a large cap cypto index or not. Huh? So, you are saying that the "bubbleness" does not lie in the index but the underlying asset (in your example, crypto). This does not prove any point that indexing leads to bubbles. I don't think you are getting my point about market-cap based indexing leading to bubbles in only certain assets.

It's not so clear. Imagine a world where there are 100 people and only one person is an active market participant. The rest of 99 people follows this person's capital allocation a la "indexing". Is this equivalent to a bubble in the overall market? The percentage of people participating doesn't matter, if those 99 people are indexing because they heard some billionaire tell them to do so without regard to the fundamentals is that any different than any other bubble we have had, its easy to tell people to index when we are in a bull market. Bubbles will be created only in the assets with greatest capital allocations made by the sole investor. But that does not equate to the entire market being in a bubble. For instance, market-cap based indexing will lead to bubbles in the highest market-cap stocks. Not all stocks will be in the bubble territory. In fact, it will lead to more neglected stocks being neglected, which actually could present more opportunities for active investors.

It's not so clear. Imagine a world where there are 100 people and only one person is an active market participant. The rest of 99 people follows this person's capital allocation a la "indexing". Is this equivalent to a bubble in the overall market?

I think people only view indexing as buying the "entire market". But you can also view indexing (market cap weighted) as piggy-backing the collective decisions made by active market participants.

If by science one means a pursuit of building knowledge, I cannot agree with anyone would would be against this. However, you have to understand that the modern science, especially the systematic method that we are using to create testable and explainable knowledge, is a form of social construct that has been formalized only 1-2 centuries ago (especially the empiricist approach established by Karl Poppper). One should understand that there is nothing absolute about this method and it should also be scrutinized. As pointed out by these articles, the method is prone to errors. So far, it is the best method we've got, but we may come up with a new and better method to collect and organize knowledge in the future. In that regard, accepting the modern science as something absolute is not much different from accepting some God as absolute.

http://www.brichem.com/uploads/files/Documents/Press_releases/2017/PR2017-12ThirdQuarterResult.pdf Earnings are out. EBITDA 2.3m well over this author's estimate of 1.3-1.7m.

Good exterior / interior conditions, but could have driven that car like on a track every day...

I bought a used car four times. All four times I bought it from a private seller. I never understood why you would buy a used car at a dealership. I guess it would make sense if you want to finance the car. I always found the best deals from a private seller. If a dealer is giving you a good deal, there is always something wrong with the car. Every seller I dealt with was pretty honest (except maybe one guy). Typically, you'd be spending a couple of days with the seller (first checking out the car, going to a mechanic for inspection, transferring a vehicle, etc.) during which time you'd get a good sense if the seller is being truthful or is a snake. At any moment you sense deceit (and you haven't made a deal yet), you can walk away. Also, as you spend some time together, the seller will usually spill out all the issues he/she is aware of. Just don't rush anything, even if it is a really good deal.

Source?

Speaking of the "floor" - at least in Toronto, prices of descent condos and townhouses have been very steady (for prime locations they have risen) even during the slight downturn last few months. I think there are enough buyers who have been priced out and are waiting to purchase these types of homes whenever the momentum reverses a bit. Anecdote: I work at a large tech company where many of my colleagues are 30-40 years old who make well over 6 figures in salary and yet are renting. They are all waiting for the moment when the prices of homes come down so they can enter the market. It's a different story with those $2M+ houses but for the lower ends of the market, I believe there is definitely a solid floor.

Also the NASDAQ crashed 75% a few years later because clueless people were buying all cryptocurrencies internet stocks at any price because the technology would change the world. I expect 75% crash would happen with cryptocurrencies at some point, yet its 20-year return could still be very good, much like NASDAQ.

BAM - both annual and quarterly report letters.

In that case: - DEST: - 80% - FELP: - 40% - PWE (OBE): - 50% - BTE: -50% Have not been having a good year, my best performers were NVTR and CDU, though they barely make a dent in the losses. To think I almost bought crypto's in the beginning of the year. :-\ I also owned / own DEST, OBE, and BTE. Not a good year for me so far. Another thing that bites me is that I sold NVDA at around 100. I had it for two years since I bought it at mid 20s...So, very happy with the return but am thinking I should have just held it for the long run. The good: I bought a lot of FFH around 560. I traded around BRY.TO between 0.50 and 0.70 for a couple of quick gains. I also bought some crypto, but I'm treating that as complete speculation anyways.

I feel like many boxing matches are rigged so would never bet on them.

I completely agree and will state again - simply assassinating Kim or destroying the regime within is not a solution on its own. You have to plan for how to deal with the balance of power in the region once those events occur.

I think rb pointed out the possible scenarios pretty well. I wanted to also point this out - China (and Russia) will try to get the control of N. Korea if it starts to implode. At least it won't let S. Korea or US take the control. So I don't think it's a good idea trying to cause internal implosion without a solid plan (which US often failed having in other regions). The reason is pretty simple. China cannot have in the region, US-backed unified Korea with a nuclear weapon. By the way, this should explain why it was a no brainer from N. Korea's stand point to develop nukes. It not only threatens the opponents, but it also forces China to not let the North Korean regime to fall under the US / S. Korean power. So, any plan to resolve this issue must involve the disarmament of nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula as its key. Simply putting balloons in the air won't help.