Castanza

Interesting question. Keeping everything else equal and on a first-level basis, Keystone XL not coming through would increase demand for railway carload petroleum products transport for BNSF. But: -Coal transport is much more significant in volume (18% of freight revenues year 2019) and the policy 'intent' behind the Keystone decision would likely spill over into a more rapid decline in coal transport over time. Eventually, the intent would also involve moving away from natural gas, another accentuation of previous trends for the mid to long term. -Unlike coal, railway petroleum volumes are highly dependent on shale oil price dynamics. Fluctuating and hard-to-forecast demand is not ideal for the railway operator (logistics, equipment, etc). -Keystone not occurring is more likely to be marginally (and temporarily) beneficial for CDN railway operators like CN as the output related to tar sands will tend to go elsewhere than in the US and railways may play a role to reach export terminals. At any rate, the long term moat of BNSF relies on the fact that it will retain its comparative advantage to carry any of many potential products, from point A to point B. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s a dilemma of sorts because the opportunity exists, but as you said many dynamics make it difficult to forecast logistics. Does anyone have info on how these contracts are written? I’m not super familiar with rail transport, but I would imagine it’s not much different than container shipping where you have a range or “quote” of price and the contract acts more as a “we get the business” type of deal.

Another way to look at this -- they converted their long duration bond portfolio into a set of income producing real assets at BHE and BNSF. The yields are better and the risks are better than long duration bonds at this point in the bond market cycle. Further, based on Christopher Bloomstran's deep dive, they used the accelerated depreciation credits at BHE and BNSF as a secondary method of reducing tax payments and increasing cashflows. As well, based on Brooklyn Investor's charts, they have built up a large cash component in their portfolio to backstop insurance losses and to provide optionality for opportunistic acquisitions. This is not all black and white but the big asset allocation shift of the last ten years (see attached) has been the movement of funds from longer term fixed income to cash and equivalents. This movement raises two questions (the indirect one raised by wabuffo and a direct one). The indirect (and retrospective) one: Returns would have been better if the longer term fixed income portion would have grown proportionally to float. The direct one: Does the current (and growing) allocation offer potentially significant optionality value? (my answer is yes) Part of the decision in shifting from bonds to other assets (cash, owned income producing assets) is about expected future returns. The move seems correct, but the unexpected happened during the recent COVID panic -- government became a lender of first resort where normally Berkshire would have had its pick of distressed assets. A similar crossroads is appearing now for Berkshire. AAPL is starting to flatline in terms of its EBIT growth and topline sales growth, but it's priced for some large expectations out of the business. Does Berkshire exit, partially exit or hold due to the expected tax hit? In 1998, Berkshire was facing a similar question with very sizable paper gains in Coca Cola, Gillette and American Express in particular. Berkshire had an out where they turned a ~3x BV share price into General Re with a merger where they acquired a substantial amount of float and a bond-heavy portfolio that they turned into cash. So, giving up a bit of equity to acquire a cashable asset was enough to de-risk an overvalued portfolio without incurring a very sizable capital gains hit from selling KO, G or AXP. Do they interrupt compounding at lower rates going forward and take the sizable capital gains tax hit? History says no, but the new answer may be something creative just like the last time. IIRC he has said not selling KO at the peak was a mistake. I think he is an expert at learning from mistakes. Maybe a swap for like the deal they did with Graham holdings somehow? This was brought up when Apple was trading at $120. Apple is good as any investment at this point. If the market crashes and opportunities arise, he's got $100 plus billion to work with to make ample returns. He had his opportunity this last year though. This thesis still holds weight, but actions speak louder than ideas at this point no? BRK hit $162 and hardly any buybacks.

Careful, don’t break your own rules :P Jk jk, but I would suggest considering my idea! Would help everyone hold each other accountable and reinforce behavior if you continually get posts removed by an algo. You could even make it so the site has two “lenses”. One which filters politically flagged posts, and another that doesn’t. This could prevent or help mitigate some troll farm accounts from shadow banning tons of posts. I think the main benefits would be, not stifling content and allowing people to take it to their end. If it crosses a line then it’s gone by unanimous consent. And it helps mitigate the ban hammer for individuals who do contribute a lot of good ideas to the board, but decided to hit the whiskey early and post a night of political banter. Plenty of individuals on here have said their peace. But there is always the case for repeat offenders who get banned permanently. Anyways...fwiw ;)

WFC, BRK

USB, PNC, AAPL, PLNT

Cubs, Greg is gone now. You're next if you don't stop the political posts. Zero tolerance going forward for board members, so everyone else, pay attention! Cheers! I would argue to simply remove or archive the whole Coronavirus thread. Nobody on here is a virologist (that I’m aware of). There are a handful of doctors. Beyond that it’s mostly just political commentary regarding lockdowns, govt decisions, etc. If all that’s desired is some type of fact sheet for Covid-19; then people should go to their respective government website (CDC.gov). Zero tolerance is open to much subjectivity in my opinion. The above exchange amount between four users is completely political. However, Greg at least provides solid content on a lot of different threads. I would argue there needs to be some gray areas. Are we allowed to discuss policies regarding taxes if it’s based around investments? KMI and the O&G stocks will certainly have policy come into play, but what’s the acceptable level of discussion? The whole Fannie thread hinges on politics while walking that fine line. Can we discuss Fed decisions? I’m not sure if it’s possible for this website, but a tool which allows users to flag a post as political would be useful. And perhaps if say 5+ users flag it as political it’s removed automatically with automation. This would help filter out noise and keep conversations of value on track.

Anyone else contemplating how BNSF could stand to benefit from the Keystone XL closing? That 800k barrels a day has to go somewhere right?

One mans experience is not the majority’s. This is a bit fear “mongerish” and covertly political. My uncle a 65 year old brick layer who has had two back surgeries, one knee replacement, a heart stent and Rheumatoid Arthritis for the past 10 years has covid last month. Kicked it in 6 days with no lasting effects (known to him). Lost his taste and smell and had a migraine most of the time. He was a checkbox for many co-morbidities but seemingly wasn’t phased. I guess the scariest part is there is no way to know how it will affect you personally.

ATCO

Nibbled some WFC and ATCO

To your last point, that is what was leading me to dig in a bit. Thanks for sharing

ATCO, PCYO, PBCT, WFC

By all means dismiss it haha. I was just poking around in some random ideas to see what else is out there. Not a real estate expert by any means. I was hoping you would comment on this actually :P. Thanks for the insights

Has anyone looked at European REITs? Some of these seem really cheap still. Full disclosure, I am not familiar with tax implications of these as a US investor so I will defer to others on that. Example: GFC Gecina SA (Paris proper REIT) Quick Glance 9.3B mkt cap 52wh: 178.00 Current: 125.00 Book 0.7 P/E 8.7 ROE 8.5% D/E 1.6 EPSG 43%

33% (Switched Brokers so + or - a 1%) Sold a handful of positions way too early (UPS), but also had some great luck with options this past year. RTX, GOOG (options), PNC, TPL, and a few others were my top plays. I built up my portfolio with a lot of value (imo) so I'm hoping to see some benefit in the coming years.

Yes, recharge stations will be required, but possibly not at many as people think. For the typical guy who drives to work and back home every day, stops at the grocery store, and then drives his kids to soccer after supper, he already has plenty of battery capacity for daily use. When he gets home from the kids' soccer, he'll just plug his car in from his house electricity and he'll be ready to roll again the next morning. With this type of use as his primary pattern, his behaviour will change from stopping to buy gas once every 10 days or two weeks to instead plugging his car in overnight at home once every 3 or 4 days. The only time when range might be a problem for him will be on weekend trips out of town, or longer vacation trips. Instead of going to the gas station 25 to 40 times per year (ie, every 10 days or two weeks), he might only use a paid-recharge facility 10 or 12 times per year when he exceeds his car's range. There is, however, a group that will be dependent on paid-recharges, and that is people who are living in houses and apartments without private parking. The people currently using on-street parking cannot simply park their car in their garage or on their driveway and plug their car in overnight. In some municipalities these people who do not have private parking spot are not numerous, but in other municipalities such as Montreal, there is heavy reliance on on-street parking. With current technology that requires perhaps 30 minutes for a basic recharge, I don't view existing gas stations as a model that can shift effectively into electric. The better model would be McDonalds, Starbucks, Dunkin, etc partnering with some outfit to electrify their existing parking lot. So, if you imagine yourself taking a trip that exceeds your car's range, you've probably already driven for 4 hours and you need to take a break to drink a coffee, or eat a burger anyway. So you just plug your car in while you take your break. You probably wouldn't at all want to pull into a Shell station, plug your car in and then twiddle your thumbs for the next 30 minutes. But, all of this is a reflection of current battery capacity and current charging times....all of that could be drastically different in five years. However it evolves, the gas station/convenience stores are in a bit of long-term trouble. They make their money from the traffic of people buying gas, not from the gas itself. The price of gas is ridiculously competitive so the margins aren't great, but they just hope that you'll buy a pack of smokes, a couple of lottery tickets and a gallon of windshield washer fluid while you're stopped for gas (the margins *are* great for those items!). When they lose the traffic from the gas re-fills, are all of those convenience stores viable? I don't think so, but time will tell. SJ This is a pretty good framework. assume fewer, but longer stops reg cars and make sure it is worth it. It could see something like Cracker Barrel doing very well if they add charging stations in their parking lots, as ther restaurants are already destinations in a way. Same for McDonalds or open air shopping centers close to highway exits that offer a variety of options to keep folks entertained for the duration of the charge. Smaller standalone convenience stores may suffer loss of traffic though. Didn’t Cracker Barrel start as a gas station? Or they at least offered gas at one point in time.

;D I hear it works on Wall Street! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/u-s-bankruptcy-tracker-march-of-the-zombies-is-coming-soon Here's a Bloomberg article that discusses 2020 being the worst year since 2009 for numbers of bankruptcies for firms with greater than $50 million in liabilities. Seems like rent/mortgage deferrals, PPP loans, EIDL loans, etc really did help small businesses stay afloat temporarily. But how many can remain that way in 2021 without that ongoing support? According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20% of small businesses fail within the first year and 33% make it to year 10. So many nuanced variables that will have drastic impacts on the outcome of small businesses in this environment. I imagine the bankruptcy numbers will increase substantially post covid. Even with ongoing support, it feels like a death by 1000 cuts. If consumers are slow to pick up the reigns post stimulus, I think a lot of owners will simply not bother with the effort and hang it up. This could change the appetite to start or own small businesses. At least in the short term 1-5 years.

Michael Burry had an interesting tweet this today. https://twitter.com/michaeljburry/status/1346565099750793217?s=21 Claim was 529k company bankruptcies in 2020. Apparently that is a 35 year low. When the cocaine wears off....

And then in the very next paragraph: I think he is partially right and partially wrong. How can he say fundamentals are merely metrics used to sell stock, when he asks the same question to private investors. Asking "how soon can I get my money back?" and ignoring earnings or sales ratios is kind of silly. BTW, have you or anyone read the book he recommended, "The Number by Alex Berenson"? Probably I should post in the correct forum. I figured some others on here saw the article. Yeah he definitely does contradict himself a bit. I tried to ignore those points and focus more on the psychology of what he was saying. Read the Footnotes sums it up nicely. At some point (hence the 1999 thread) it seems like fundamentals don't matter at all. At least for the broader market. It seems like as long as some analyst is willing to slap a BUY rating on a stock it will go up. Cathie Wood has made a hell of a lot of money using this psychology to her advantage. I have not read the book.

https://blogmaverick.com/2013/01/10/the-stock-market-2/ Mildly interesting blog post from Mark Cuban in 2004 regarding the market and his personal experience taking a company public.

Gheez Castanza, we are 9 month into this, your wife is a nurse and that’s how well you are informed? You are correct, there are no LT studies on the vaccine and there is Little known a out the LT effects of COVID-19 either, except indications that there are some that could be a problem. Most importantly, the vaccine will absolutely absolutely prevents you from carrying COVID-19 and infecting others - in fact that’s one of the main benefits of vaccination. https://abc7news.com/covid-vaccine-masks-mask-wearing-pfizer/9139874 “Here's what the studies don't yet show. They haven't looked at whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying COVID-19 and spreading it to others. It's possible that someone could get the vaccine but could still be an asymptomatic carrier. They may not show symptoms, but they have the virus in their nasal passageway so that if they're speaking, breathing, sneezing and so on, they can still transmit it to others.” Obviously if you don’t have symptoms you’re far less likely to spread it since you aren’t sneezing and coughing all over. Yes, the vaccine helps reduce spread but it is t an end all solution. Hence the requirement to continue wearing masks and social distancing. As I said before....I will take it...but currently there are others who should get it first. That’s why my original question was....are there any SIGNIFICANT benefits for a person under 30 to justify getting the vaccine early over those who are high risk or work on the front line.

What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain. Living up to your username. George was frequently obtuse as well. What did I say that was wrong? If you’re young and healthy you are very unlikely to experience any adverse symptoms. The vaccine is in limited supply. The vaccine does not prevent you from carrying covid, nor does it prevent you from being contagious and spreading covid. So far from what I’ve read, there is no additional benefit to getting the vaccine for individuals who have already contracted covid and gotten over it (unknown for me). Longterm studies on vaccine: none Longterm studies on covid: none Is there any significant health benefit for young healthy individuals from the vaccine to warrant getting it before high risk individuals? As it stands if I get covid the worst I’m am likely to experience is bad flu like symptoms for 14 days max. For me personally, it’s easy enough to self quarantine if I get it. Why would I want to take a rushed to market vaccine if I am extremely low risk? If weighing current risk vs current reward is obtuse.....well, I guess I’m obtuse.

Attending live concerts, international travel, admittance to in-person university classes, contributing to the greater good as it relates to herd immunity. And, you know, Gates and Soros whispering in your ear through the chip You can still spread and carry covid even after receiving the vaccine (per CDC). Edit: I love the responses from the holier than thou assholes on this forum. Neither asked me why. Neither answered the question from a health perspective on an individual basis. Here is a question for you two. Why should a young person take the vaccine which is in limited supply over and elderly high risk individual or frontline worker? Overly emotional individuals like yourselves are cancer to society. Scream louder. You didn’t list health benefits. And you equated me to an anti Baxter conspiracy theorist for asking a rational question. Which ironically nobody has answered as of yet.

What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain.

Not being selfish and spreading it to the community and potentially harming / killing those at risk. I also know a healthy 30 year old who died... so there's that too. Americans are way too skeptical of their government. Just take the damn vaccine to help yourself out and those around you. Be a good neighbor.