Castanza

https://twitter.com/michaeljburry/status/1308511573271478273?s=21

BRK.B - slowly exiting over the past week. Reduced positions another 15% Closed my remaining GOOG calls to free up more cash Sitting about 70% cash now

I get the thesis with sports teams in general...they are trophy assets that keep going up in value because billionaires don't have anything better to do with their fortunes. Most of these teams don't generate much in the way of cash flow (probably except NFL due to non-guaranteed nature of contracts), so it's kind of like owning gold where you hope that there's a bigger fool who wants the team for glamour. There may be a more fundamental angle to this, but I guess I prefer assets that cash flow or have a reasonable expectation of cash flowing. In the case of MLB specifically , you're owning part of a sport that has an aging fan base and while I wouldn't bet anything on this, the long-term bear case would be that some of these sports become way less relevant and are displaced by alternatives (gaming/esports, soccer). To put it plainly...it looks cheap. Baseball may be declining but I’m not too worried about that in the near term (5 yrs). I think the game will change and evolve and people will eventually come back to it. Plus there is the whole tax haven for some billionaire angle to owning a sports team https://www.yourfinancialwizard.com/taxation-professional-sports-teams-team-owners/ It’s not a huge position for me currently, but I’ll probably continue to add over the next year if it stays depressed. I’m a bit of a sucker for simple thesis.

There is no strong evidence when predicting the future of COVID. We have mixed evidence: a virus with some flu-like characteristics (which may gain viral strength during traditional flu season) ; a "second-wave" which hit the US in June-Aug ; a lack of a "second wave" in most of Europe ; vaccine progress which to date seems mixed (historically vaccines require aprox 18 months to develop, if at all possible) When presented with conflicting evidence, usually the responsible decision is to "play it safe". At least that is my perspective, yours may differ. “Playing it safe” should be reserved for situations where the outcome is more binary. A we’ve seen so far, lockdowns affect far more than just the spread of the virus. I mean, wasn’t the objective to “flatten the curve” as to not overwhelm hospital systems?

Does anyone have an reasons not to use Robinhood besides... - it's limited on markets and some equities - it has crashed multiple times this past year - options detail and charts aren't good Besides that, if you're not holding any precarious positions that could screw you in the event of a crash then why not?

Picked up this book about a month ago on a friends recommendation. Had no idea it was written by Oddballstocks. So far I'm about half way through. Very well written and a great primer on a subject I knew little about. kudos to you Oddballstocks

BATRK

Yeah, maybe they can make it shaped like a little gold star and require people to wear it on their person visible for all.... ::)

This is also a lie. I thought the protests WOULD result in spread. I haven't seen any evidence that they ACTUALLY HAVE though. There is a very good reason why 30M people protesting might not impact overall spread of Covid. You are a smart guy, I'm sure you will figure it out. I needed someone smarter to explain it to me. Hint: there are more than 30 million people in the world. You’re a smart guy too. If 6k people in an arena for one night result in covid spread. Then it should be logical to think that 30m people crossing state lines and protesting with and without masks for months would result in increased spread. You know why there are no studies on it? Because it would be political suicide to come out against it.

Please keep BLM on the political threads. This lie would take about 3 seconds to debunk, but I don't want to clutter this thread. Right....you must have missed the part where their leader said they were trained marxists right? And they justified the looting saying people should go take their reparations. This response is quite comical coming from the guy who called out the Trump protests for spreading Covid but then had the balls to say 30m people protesting for months had zero impact on Covid spread. Give me a break.... ;D

Trump does not have the nation's interest at heart. Any actions to that end are purely coincidental. If he was truly concerned with preventing national hysteria, he would have made efforts to meet BLM protesters in the middle, rather than stoke that fire. His actions to protect national interests are inconsistent, because that is not his goal. His actions to protect Trump interests are absolutely consistent, because that is his goal. You don’t meet terrorists in the middle. There is zero middle ground when you go around burning, looting, and destroying private property. You don’t get to go around harassing and attacking random white people and then expect some “middle ground” to be met. Sorry LC but that is a terrible take on the current environment. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. BLM by their own admission is a terrorist organization. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

Lol. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. I'm just here to enjoy the mental gymnasts at work--surely politicizing masks, downplaying the threat, and holding indoor gatherings in no way affected R0 in the U.S.A.! There are no levers that Trump pulled the wrong way, surely! Good night, and keep dancing for Don! What is more likely to spread the virus? A.) 35+ million protestors, rioters, and looters shouting, walking in close proximity, and crossing state lines for 3+ months straight. B.) A handful of rallies with a few thousand individuals who probably live in rural areas.

Get a hardware wallet https://www.ledger.com/

Fascinating. For me personally, very worried about how Trump is a wannabe autocrat who is moving (successfully) towards making the U.S. more like regimes in North Korea, Russia, Turkey. You don't think its a big deal? And then you've got Biden who is basically a moderate republican/centrist and won't run the country like a failed casino with his kids in charge. I don't get it lol Not sure I have your unfettered trust of the pharmaceutical industry, but yes, I'm also very grateful we have a lot of really smart scientists and companies working on vaccines and treatments. It's amazing. Biden is a moderat republican? :o Did you see his promises to raise trillions of tax and all other things? That seems like a radical left. BTW, Biden's son took a 2bn dollar loan from Bank of China in 2015. Nobody knew what happened later. It could be "forgiven" and pocketed. He needs to explain that because that is wayyyy bigger than his son's Ukraine dealings. Feel free to ignore my "moderate republican" language if it helps get the main gist. IMO Biden's more of a centrist than plenty of Democrats (take Bernie or Warren), and will basically act like a sane person as President. Don't think he'd be functionally that different over 4 years than someone like Romney, Bush, Obama. re: taxes. Biden's proposed tax changes are $4 Trillion Over 10 Years, ~400 billion a year. Maybe high if he does the whole thing. Trump tax cut is like 1.8 trillion over 10 years from google. So Biden proposal fills that back in and adds an increase of similar size. Not really seeing what is radical about these levels up or down, but okay yeah taxes would go up. Any comment on this part? You don't think its a big deal? I commented on it in the politics section.

Hala Kahiki Brewing Co. Pineapple Ale It's 5 o'clock somewhere right? Growing up, my Dad thought it was funny to take Labor Day and interpret it literally for my brother and me (man we hated that ;D). Ironically I plan to carry that tradition on this weekend and plant a few acres of alfalfa for the deer. Enjoy your weekends 8)

Investment that could potentially become primary down the road

Trimmed positions (positive) across the board by 25-50% to raise some capital. Might possibly purchase some residential acreage in the near future.

RKT - Rocket Companies Small position

You have inadvertently clarified the major fault lines in this thread. If you downplay the risks of driving, it absolutely changes the risk level of driving. You drive a little faster, run yellow lights, text, drive after a beer. And risk doesn't rise linearly, so small behaviour changes dramatically increase your risk. And it doesn't just change your risk, you increase the risk for everyone else on the road. the estimated risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately 9% if they are hit at a speed of 30 mph. The risk at an impact speed of 40 mph is much higher, at approximately 50%. The same thing happens when you downplay the risk of a pandemic. Who do insurance companies target with high premiums for driving? Young teenage males and elderly drivers. Targeted solutions for higher risk individuals.

Michael Burry https://twitter.com/michaeljburry/status/1300128007240126464?s=21 Also: Didn't the CDC just say that only 6% of covid-19 deaths can be attributed to "only covid-19" and the other 94% had a comorbidity listed alongside covid-19 as a cause. Is this significant? To me it seems it is, but I'll let the more knowledgeable individuals say. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities

Added to PCYO this morning.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with 100%, since my view of "socialism + capitalism" is basically "basic medical + rich people can get extra/expedited service by paying". The key point is that 100% capitalism just doesn't work in healthcare, and that's pretty clear because the USA has way higher costs, the same or worse outcomes, large numbers of people having awful financial outcomes from as a result of bad luck, and perverse, grossly-suboptimal economic outcomes where people have to hold on to a particular job to maintain health insurance. It's basically indefensible. It's worth noting that I'm in Canada (a public system), and this year people in my family have had two surgeries, both done privately, one in a public hospital and one in a private clinic. I'm open to the idea of a hybrid system, and it seems plausible to me that that a hybrid system might be optimal. The US healthcare has been messed with so many times by government. Every attempt to “control cost” has lead to greater cost. How can you argue that capitalism style healthcare systems don’t work when it really hasn’t even been allowed to be tried. As I’ve pointed out before the US healthcare system was great before big government coupled it to employers. Before HMO1973 many people didn’t have insurance simply because general visits were cheap enough to pay out of pocket. Healthcare costs were generally low because it was competitive. And catastrophic insurance was generally affordable. Also there was a plethora of pro bono medical fair for those in need. Poor individuals were also not stuck without insurance because they didn’t have a job. Likewise individuals weren’t tied to a job they hate simply because they liked the insurance. I pay $120 a month for my wife and myself. This is including dental, vision, medical. My deductible is max 6800 out of pocket. Most of these socialist type healthcare systems require me to pay roughly my full deductible every year even if I never have anything done. Instead I get to keep that “theoretical 6.8k” and max out my HSA every year. Some people might not have it like me, but America is the land of choice (for almost everything in life). Why would we not move in that direction? I would guess that over 50 years many of these governments are going to struggle with the costs of such plans. Won’t be any different than medicare, public pensions, and social security in the US. The things almost always balloon way out of their intended scope.

When, as a 'group', it is decided that life insurance will be issued to 'members', the risks are pooled and the premiums (possibly adjusted for age for obvious reasons) are essentially uniform across the board. Sometimes, it is decided to account for some specific risk factors (ie smoking status, because it is so significant and 'easy' to document) but, otherwise, the risks are pooled and you end up with a premium (adjusting for administrative costs and maybe a profit margin but let's forget about this profit part for now or consider profit as the business definition or the potential social capital gain) that reflects the pooled risks. You end up with individuals that will exhibit various levels of risk behaviors, some of which may be very far from your 'values' but you may adhere to the group life insurance program because of the net benefit it provides. What is a 'group'? Can it be a nation? By definition, pooling risks and other collective behaviors will have a tendency to impact personal preferences and 'rights'. What is it that prevents to aim for the best NPV, taking all relevant inputs (private or public)? Benjamin Franklin was not exactly a leftist but, when seeing the impact of fires in Philadelphia, decided to put in place several community features for the 'common good': community-sponsored fire brigade, an insurance company, prevention measures (the Franklin stove etc). These features had a 'government' component but included good governance aspects which apply to any endeavors, public or private, in order to maximize outcome and minimize consequences. When referring to the "directional linear path", instead of a war-type mentality, i wonder if all specific questions (healthcare, student aid etc) should not be seen from the perspective of a spectrum whereby, for some questions, one needs to pull and, for others, one needs to push. It may help to get bipartisan 'deals' without individuals having a sense that they are losing their sense of identity. i think you like quotes and i wonder what Benjamin Franklin would say and do in today's environment but when he said: "whereby every man might help another, without any disservice to him", i think he was referring to the net positive NPV concept described above. Undoubtedly there are social programs which are beneficial. But I stand by my point that they are not always the best way to do things. Many of these institutions (fire departments, police departments) which provide net positive services for community’s also present real drag in certain manners. Pensions in the public sector are a good example. Many of these institutions start out great, but quickly mutate into leeches and inefficient monstrosities. I have a friend from high school who’s dad was the fire chief. He is a great guy and will do anything to help. He had a good reputation in the community etc. he retorted last year, and the newspaper published an article. “Fire Chief Retires with Highest Pension”. He was going to be pulling a 70k a year pension in a city where the average income is low-mid 30s. It absolutely wrecked his reputation. He played by the rules, and that’s how the system worked. But even an upstanding guy can be greedy and stack their cards to get as much as they can. It’s human nature. On this flip side of this it’s easy for government to utilize these institutions created to provide a base benefit to society, and stretch them beyond their means. A good example of this is the essay . “Not Yours to Give.” Which highlights Davy Crocketts time in government. https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/ I appreciate your thoughts though, and I can understand your perspective. If I had to pick a direction for healthcare in the US, I would say let’s start by uncoupling it from employers and allow it to be bought and sold in the open market much like car insurance etc. I guess this went a bit off the original topic, so any further discussion in it I’ll move to politics (probably already a thread). Thanks

How do you couple tax payer funded health insurance with vast freedom of consumerism in the US? Why should we subsidize the masses when people stuff their face with hamburgers, chain smoke, and binge drink? I think some form of assistance for those in need or low income bracket is absolutely fine. Although I do think there could be better alternatives (ex prior HMB 1973). But that question (above) would absolutely come up at some point in the US if healthcare is afforded to all. And I have little faith that it would not lead to a restriction on diet, lifestyle, and health related choices by the government. To me, it opens the door for more legislative abuse and the chipping away of freedoms. Why is political progress always viewed in a one directional linear path towards social policies?

Socialism doesn't reduce individuals to numbers unless taken to an extreme like communism. And generally I agree that reducing individuals to numbers is a very bad thing. The appropriateness of socialism depends on the problem you're trying to solve. For justice and national defence, it seems clear that socialism is the way to go. Socialism--or socialism + capitalism--clearly works better for things like healthcare and basic research. And capitalism--or capitalism with only a touch of socialism--clearly works better for things like food and widget production and distribution. Also, capitalism breaks when one can make money by killing other people. That's why there's value in actually looking at the problem and different solutions rather than assuming that because your hammer is great at pounding in a nail, it will be equally good at cutting a board into two equal-sized pieces. I think that if you are going to say things “work” then you also need to define them in terms of time. Socialized medicine may work in the short term, but it isn’t guaranteed to work in the long term. I’m not saying I’m for or against it, just as an example. Hell even Hayek was in favor of a universal healthcare plan (if it could be afforded without burden). Entitlements tends to not go away. Hence my apprehension to them. Modern politics is defined by “catching falling knives” and “doubling down”. It’s not often that societies take a step back and move against the grain or natural tendencies.