lnofeisone

I collect occasional coins and currency. All as keepsakes or themes (for example, I have every USSR 1 ruble coin). Few comments: 1) Reddit is your friend. @DooDiligence gave a suggestion. There is another one if you have currency https://www.reddit.com/r/CURRENCY/. These subs do a good job policing and making sure nobody makes an offer (lowball or fair). They will also tell you if you have something unique or if you should look for something unique (a letter or a funny ridge on a coin can make a difference). 2) You may need to sift through these coins and use ebay to value them. I recommend doing by country and then time period. It's a good way to learn history too. 3) Coin grading can get expensive quick. CAC (I use them) splits them out by pre-1965 and post-1965. Rare coins get an extra premium for grading. You are looking anywhere from $15 to $1k per coin. 4) Don't clean them. Please know what you have first. Cleaning may devalue (physical or chemical). 5) There are some expensive coins but odds are not in your favor. Coin value appreciation is hard to figure out. It has elements of art market to it. You could also buy coin books, organize them, put them away as a memory.

This is a fantastic idea. Added to my list to look into.

It's ridiculous to argue that grid power will come from crude oil (though China has some electricity from oil). It's a good thing I didn't make this argument about grid power. Nice jump to conclusions there. A real ridiculous argument is to claim that China is decoupling from oil. Just about every credible projection shows China's oil (that would include gasoline, naphta, etc.) growing. Even if you remove entirely gasoline demand to make your EV argument, you only remove 25% of oil demand. And gasoline demand in China is still growing and when it starts to decline it is expected to go down by something like 3% annually if they continue their EV adoption (which I think they will if they can overcome some electricity-related challenges). And, you can't remove the gasoline demand because, as I showed you in an earlier message, China is selling a lot of plug-in hybrids that continue to use gasoline. Maybe on a good day you can argue that China is trying to double from coal with their goal to get to peak carbon by 2030. Chinese electric generation is something like 50% coal today, and it's still growing. I would like to emphasize that coal usage is growing. (Fun exercise: A typical coal plant is 33% efficient. Say your EV is 95% efficient, but your system efficiency is still 33%. It's just a tad bit higher than your ICE engine. So, for China, EVs and their efforts to get to carbon neutrality are like a cart before the horse, but, I guess, it's good to have a cart). While I'm at it, I am VERY skeptical that China will use LNG for power generation. It's more expensive than their renewables, and it's too volatile. China is fine with having oil as an import because it sees the world awash in oil, and prices are generally stable. So, in the foreseeable future, you'll see China go with wind, solar, and nuclear energy, and they have a very long way to go, replacing all the coal with renewable energy. So it'll be interesting to see the next 5 years. Either there is a breakthrough in battery tech, or China will have to break its carbon peak pledge, especially if it continues with its EV sales (which I think it will).

And where do you suppose the electricity to power these EVs will come from?

I'm coming in at +32% for the year. The biggest dog of the year continues to be VET, but this position is shrinking due to portfolio growth. The thesis is still intact (and is improving), so I'm holding it. HIFS (big rally), CPNG (lots of options activity), and NEP (more puts than shares long) were big contributors. I have two holdings that are up 100%+ but they were sized too small (SKYH warrants and Kraken Robotics (thanks to @Saluki for the latter)).

I've been trying to wrap my head around Starlink's ISP TAM. The limiting factors are how much data their satellites can relay and how receptive host countries will be to US satellites flying around. Rural makes it a natural fit. But I haven't had the time to back into their numbers just yet. And when backing into those numbers, who is the right comparable? Is it Comcast? Verizon? Charter? It can't be one of the legacy satellite providers.

VET

I threw some money on RKLB. They aren't directly competing with SpaceX (yet) and have real revenue and products. They are growing reasonably quickly, but I have a hard time assessing their TAM. At EV of 12B vs. SpaceX's 350B...worth a shot.

I, too, wonder how these downgrades work. CACI is probably the more interesting play here because roughly 30% of their revenue is up for re-compete in the next 2 years + some major deals are coming down the pipeline where they dominate. I doubt GS tracks it that close but who knows.

I like your take on mag7 to fantasy tech. I will say there are companies that have real world applications (D-wave). IBM has a great pulse on quantum world with partnerships and has made inroads with some of their clients for testing and prototype developments.

VAL Warrants and sold SWBI puts.

I own some XRP for no good reason really. But what is a basket of utility coins?

Department of State Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) are probably the best example of Gov't up or out. They really do let go of low performers. I view our gov't workforce as: 1) Mission - people that actually do the work. So think lawyers, doctors, scientists and 2) IT and enabling functions. I think there is A LOT of waste in the IT departments. This is where you have massive contractor budgets, etc. So if you are really looking for budget reductions I would start with: 1) Look at contractor budgets. Those are your CACI, IBM, Accenture, etc. 2) Look at the IT and enabling functions.

I don't think this is true at all. I worked with DOJ attorneys gearing up for trials and they put as many hours as any big law firm lawyers for fraction of the salary. I worked with a couple of scientists ans doctors at NIH and they work more than their commercial counterparts. I can same the same for most gs14 and gs15 equivalents. You may have an argument for lower gs employees but they make up a smaller $ fraction of total salary pie.

There is 0% chance he will fire 80% of gov't employees. Fed employee growth also isn't the real problem.

How is EV defined in this article? Just BEV or BEV + PHEV?

CPNG - 20% EW - 15% VET - 10% CNC/CI/HUM basket - 10% CPT/MAA/JOE basket - 10% (mostly JOE options. Selling puts around 50 and selling calls around 60 proved to be a good printer this year) V - 5% AOS - 5% ROL/RTO - 5% (rolling from ROL to RTO) MSCI - 5% NEP - 3% STNE - 3% and a bunch of small potato things.

This is correct. The current numbers are Oct 1st though end of Oct. Fun fact about this chart - Mexican nationals made up majority of the KST arrests on the northern border (and southern border) as of 2024. SE Asians are now becoming a bigger trend. Mostly because Canada has very liberal visa policies.

I remember you recommending it a year ago or so. Excellent call.

Thanks, @TB. Looks like a compelling reason to look to Israel for investing.

This is going to be my last post to you on this topic. It's obvious that you have very surface level understanding of the industry and I recommend you spend some time understanding its nuances (for example, difference between petroleum and crude oil and how it is accounted for by EIA and others) before opining. For example, we import oil not because we have some magic refining base. Our refining base isn't set up to process the type of oil we extract in the US. This is why we send out our light sweet out and bring in dirty heavy oil. While the US has decoupled from oil, it still didn't decouple from natural gas. Do oil + gas consumption and plot that vs. GDP. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. This isn't a very productive conversation for me so I'm going to excuse myself out.

You are conflating petroleum and crude oil. Crude oil is a subset of petroleum and we are still a net importer of crude oil. So re-read what I wrote with that in mind. Here - https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php "The United States remained a net crude oil importer in 2022, importing about 6.28 million b/d of crude oil and exporting about 3.58 million b/d. Some of the crude oil that the U.S. imports is refined by U.S. refineries into petroleum products—such as gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel—that the U.S. later exports. Also, some of imported petroleum may be stored and later exported." Look at your own chart. This shows you petroleum and the chart is a bit wonky too (the previous table that you provided was showing crude oil numbers). If we consume say 20 million barrels per day, but we only produce 19 and we are a net exporter, where does the remaining (1 million + whatever we export) come? This is proprietary industry data, so I'd be surprised if you can find it readily, but let's give this a try. With WTI trading at $70, Vermillion gets $60 or so in netback per BOE from its Australian Wandoo oil field. This is why you get interest in the offshore. Broadly speaking, offshore production is cheaper than onshore. Numbers I am familiar with are $20/BOE for offshore and $30/BOE for onshore for the cost to operate. Overall, the average netback (offshore + onshore) is about $25/BOE. So if Oil trades down from 70 to say 45, drillers, on average, will be at cost. If it trades down to $40, they will be losing $ and they will stop drilling. Of course you can get nuanced and factor in hedges, etc. but if you find a 100% price taker, logically, they need to start shutting in their wells at $45. This is all technical and, in my opinion, irrelevant. I think the 3M BOE that Trump will most come from the LNG exports. We got Plaquemines and Corpus Christi III going online soon, so that will basically give him a win without him doing anything. I doubt his base will do a deep dive to figure out where BOEs came from even if gasoline prices go up. \

This doesn't really answer as to which fracker will be able to step in here and bring 3M barrels of oil into the market. Never mind the fact that US demand for oil exceeds what is being produced. You also need to include natural gas that is currently displacing coal and the US is using more and more of that. My views are: 1) There will be growth in oil and gas output but it will be more organic and it will be dynamically matched to the price (i.e., if oil trades down to $40, we won't have companies just drilling) 2) Any new BOE will be absorbed by the US's growing economy 3) No company will jump on the opportunity to drill, drill, drill without incentives or price guarantees 4) This is a bit under the radar but PE has been moving in across the board into energy sector (O&G, renewables). I don't think the likes of BX will be very pleased with the drilling of BOE at a loss.

Can you name frackers that you think don't have discipline and that will support the +3M of BOE? O&G industry broadly reduced debt by 30%. FCF is prioritized. Rig count is nowhere near 2015 highs. You seemed to be anchored on OXY and while Anadarko purchase wasn't the best, CrownRock story has yet to play out.

This right here is how I view energy will play out. Frackers that can bring 3M barrels of BOE are not going to frack without massive incentives. O&G companies have found a new religion, and investors punish those who don't show discipline swiftly. Also, I think a keyword is being overlooked here: BOE. That doesn't mean it will be oil only. There is gas in that equation. If European gas prices spike, the US can export natural gas.