lnofeisone

@thowed - thanks for the article. Added to my list to read tonight. @John Hjorth - I think you are making my case. Investing into multi-national concerns that derive much of their profit outside of EU seems fine. Otherwise, specific European core sectors like banking, energy, and food seem to be treated like utilities. There is a cap on how much you can earn, and WFT is applied once that value is exceeded. It's only on the gains and losses aren't subsidized. At least in the US utilities are guaranteed to make a profit and the market they are in is hyper local with utility having a monopoly. This isn't the case for European markets. Taxes are also passed retroactively. This type of stability (or lack thereof) isn't conducive for business planning and will hurt the economy in the long term more than it helps today.

99 shares of JNJ and tendered all of them. The TD rep said that she's been fielding JNJ tenders all morning.

Europe continues imposing a windfall tax on sectors where profits surge. These sectors are usually very volatile and ebb and flow with global dynamics. So far it's oil and gas, food, pharma, and banks. I know some of you are invested in European equities (e.g., DB) and some live across the pnd. Long term, I suspect this will erode domestic production, raise prices to compensate for the tax, and will put EU at the mercy of the importers. Feels short-sighted on their part, but curious about what the board thinks. https://www.ft.com/content/c16fdb5d-ec8a-44bd-a482-ff9c50719c3c

I saw this popped up on Barron's and meant to look at it further. thanks for the reminder!

You and I are interpreting the results differently. My interpretation is that LK 99 is not a superconductor at any temperature so the only frontier that's being pushed is the one that says don't do more testing with LK 99.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/lk-99-replicated-material-no-superconductivity There was also a tweet (that I can't currently find) from UMD QMC - one of the top centers when it comes to superconductors and quantum in general - that the paper was basically sloppy and analysis lacking.

It's a bad translation compounded by her conflation of another event [UK project to reduce number of gray squirrels].

A DRIP can work in two ways: New stock plan and Open market purchase plan. What you are describing is the New stock plan (NSP). Those are the companies that often offer discounts on shares. For tax purposes, you do have to pay tax on fair market value (i.e., current cost of the share). Pro: The company is getting new capital (keeping the dividend cash and issuing shares) so it's a form of dilution but a good capital management technique. Con: The company has to hire someone to track the DRIP plan and be compliant. Open market purchase (OMP) Dividend is sent to a trustee and the trustee will buy the shares on the open market. This is similar to your scenario C. Pro: None that I can think of. Con: The company has to pay a fee to a trustee to manage the plan.

I'll look at the results closer but china and India are notorious for fake data in the scientific circles. Also, arxiv is not peer reviewed so I'd wait for something like nature (or other lesser known publications like acta met, j phys, etc.)

I had a roommate in grad school was trying to defend his master's thesis and focused on simulation. His simulation didn't produce the expected results because gravity interfered with interactions. He set gravity to 0, the simulation worked, and he defended his thesis. The last time someone tried to claim room temperature superconductor - corbaneceous sulfur hydride - had the veracity of their publication (and specifically "user-defined" data analysis) questioned. Lastly, and Andrew Cote (despite using the term [sic] Material Science) correctly calls this out, this would need to be a single crystal. Single crystal metallurgy is extremely expensive. One of very few places where single crystal metallurgy is commercially viable is single crystal airplane blades. And metallurgy is a very mature field. In a nutshell, this is a simulation only that, if reproduced, will most likely have a niche commercial application.

PRFT - there is a name I haven't heard in a while. A bit different sandbox. If I recall correctly, PRFT focuses a lot more on custom app dev and that's one area that's currently under a lot of stress in the consulting world across just about every industry. Right now the places to be in the land of consulting are firms that have Gov't contracts (ACN, CACI, etc.) and asset plays (again, ACN, CACI). Commercial consulting and custom app dev is experiencing fairly severe demand pullback coupled with the increased cost of talent.

I'd be curious how this plays out. I suspect they will report really bad revenue numbers going forward. The industries where they are playing are really pulling back on consulting services. AI is growing fast but it's also least profitable niche and it will take a while to figure out profitability.

I think these drone attacks are an indication of desperation on the Ukrainian side. The narrative over the last few weeks has gone from "Russian soldiers are demoralized" and "spring offensive" to "summer offensive" to "we should keep our expectations grounded" and "Russian moral (or shovels if you will) isn't that low." On some levels I do believe Ukraine drank its own kool-aid thinking that Russia will just collapse. Russia, it seems, has used its time wisely hardening defensive lines while all the attention was on Bachmut. I've been reading about mine fields, mined trenches, use of helicopters, etc. Just all around a balanced strategy to hold Ukraine at bay which seems to be working. It also seems that russia only opportunistically advances. And why wouldn't they? Sure, ukraine can annoy Russia with missile and drone strikes and vice versa but absent something big the battle lines appear to have stabilized.

Is there a source for this? Everything I'm reading says that drones were jammed and this was an inadvertent target. One of the buildings that was hit houses ministries but they (Rosstandart) are similar to US NIST. Nothing around FSB or their contractors.

I would say the deal is near certain. This is not Amgen-Horizon with drugs on the line. This is a near-failing biotech and Eli Lilly. What you are really buying is a non-tradable CVR for $6 and possibility to pay out $111.

Thanks for the idea. I did a bit of digging over the weekend and agree with @whatstheofficerproblem it's a heads I win and tails I don't lose much. I put a bid in and see if I get a fill for something small.

Ha..better be generally correct than precisely wrong, right? I was just curious about the construction/assumption of the trade because both trades are betting on the same idea that MGK will reverse. You are betting that the reversal will happen around current prices and are willing to absorb the additional loss if the market keeps marching up above $265 (you are also risking assignment risk with your short $245 call). My alternative trade says I am willing to concede 25% ($5) chance that the market will march to $265 (roughly the previous high for MGK) and pay for that upfront to remove the risk of losing ($20). Your trade is unconstrained sub-$200 and I am assuming that 20% is probably a reasonable amount for megacaps to drop in 6 months. Here is my back-of-the-envelope math: You built a synthetic short and capped it with a 265 call in case it runs away. Your breakeven should be around $242 (I ballparked the $242 based on the option prices now: $245 call - $14, $245 put - $12, and $265 call - $5, in other words you paid roughly $3 ($14-$12-$5) for your trade). I think the scenarios I'm considering: MGK goes above $265 - you lose your net debit and you are on the hook for $20 on your 245/265 spread (this is your max loss) @245 - you are out $3 MGK at $242, you break even Under $242 you start to make money with the sold $245 call really juicing your return which will show up if you are closer to $242 but this extra return will diminish as MGK goes down. Overall your trade will be making you about $0.90 for every $1 decline in MGK. Your actual limit is MGK hitting 0 (not very likely but mathematically). The risk profile of buying $245/200 put spread (or selling $245/$200 call spread) would look like: You pay $8.90 to enter the trade the $8.90 @245 or above, lose net debut Break even is $236 Under $236 you start making $0.85 for $1 decline in MGK. Under $200, you get no benefit You can do the same exercise with selling the call spread. The only consideration with call spread is the risk of early assignment (which is likely to happen) on the short $200 leg of the trade.

Curious why you went with this configuration. Wouldn't selling 240/245 bull spread work better? You get credit upfront. Lose less and make more. The break-even is a bit lower but only within few % points. Are you banking on vol picking up and put getting priced up higher?

A friend swears by this thing and has all the accessories including a modified thermocouple and an app. He said the learning curve on this thing is very high. The first few times we had his cooking, it was meh. He finally figured it out and now it comes out nearly the same every single time. His problem is that he doesn't use it enough. My take, similar to many points of view above, if you are serious above BBQ and do it often, it's worth it. If you are a casual BBQer, there are cheaper options that will get you 80% there.

Same. Bought BTI, ELV, CNC.

100% agree. We are all sharing opinions and opinions changed as the war evolved (e.g., west involvement, weapons upgrades, the weather). @Castanza - I think the battlefield will decide the outcome of this situation. It's clear Ukraine is committed but so is Putin. Something's gotta give.

Can the answer be lot more straightforward? Ukraine is struggling to reclaim its territory and just needs nastier weapons to make progress. Russia is well dug in and more importantly, had adapted to be more effective. Mines, helicopters, lancets - are all things that Russia has perfected and it's now causing Ukarine major headaches. Just my 2 cents.

I think the trick here is to think about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't counted in Europe's energy consumption/imports. Ukraine also buys nat gas from traders who buy it from Russia, i.e., Ukraine flows Russian gas to europe and then flows it back. Russia's exports are roughly 10% of its pre-war capacity to about 15 bcm (from ~150 bcm). Ukraine's imported gas is roughly 10-12bcm. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of Ukraine's imported gas is Russian. With all European LNG terminals up and running, I think the actual pipe sizes is what will matter and I suspect the pipes aren't large enough to supply the host import country (e.g., Germany) and ship to Ukraine.

Thanks for the recommendation. Got this book and finished it cover to cover over the weekend. We are all familiar with the names of the trading houses and the individual traders but the backstories are phenomenal.

In today's conflict, two equally equipped peers will have difficulty moving the battle lines. This is what we are witnessing from Ukraine/Russia conflict. I think that's going to be the way forward. The oil refinery fiasco in Syria was the US airforce and precision artilerry having a field day with ground forces with no air or anti-air support. Russia and Wagner have done a decent job adjusting in the Ukraine/Russian conflict to neutralize HIMARS and take advantage of Ukraine's shorting of anti-air and unleashing the helicopters.