Castanza

Could you expand on this a little? Liquidity is coming almost entirely from the underwriting group, the issues are being priced at slightly below market (to evidence a marketing bump on issue), and underwriters are focused on volume (fees) - not quality. Get as much out the door as possible before the opportunity closes, and dump the inventory as quietly as possible. SD I see, definitely a good point. Ever since Venture Capital money has come into play, IPO's have been well, "disingenuous." These companies come out of the gates with massive valuations its hard to see how they are't set up for failure. Not sure if anyone watches the HBO series "Silicon Valley." But this show highlights some of these issues, such as being overvalued when you IPO. Also it's just a damn funny show.

Could you expand on this a little?

Even if we were to wait 1000 years for better sample sizes how accurate would the data even be? I'm not a fan of historical averages. I mean look at how the world has changed in the last 50 years. There are far too many variables in my opinion to draw any type of conclusion which would make me feel confident in averaging a 7% return. The time is now and whatever the return now is what we will get. I think putting more effort into real time vs historical time is far more important. But there still is value in terms of historical perspectives. Especially when it comes to policies, and psychological/sociological trends (Which can be hard to justify at times as well.) I'll leave this skyline montage to simply show how much places in Asia, SA, and the Middle East have changed. Certainly these have effects on today's economy compared to the early 1900's when the populations were low all over and countries were more nationally focused. http://the-technology-tips.blogspot.com/2014/03/20-skylines-of-world-then-vs-now.html

Greg, I agree completely. People shouldn't be thin skinned. But censorship wasn't the purpose. It was more to protect the sanctity and purpose of the forum to keep it from getting overrun like every other forum that has fallen due to this exact thing. But you're right, it's probably best to just ignore and move along. Regards,

Glad to be here John! In short I did not create this post assuming I had some democratic power haha. I am new to this site so my insight to the effectiveness of the political section is limited. The main reason I posted this was because I noticed a lot of people complaining about political posts and how they were beginning to bleed into other topics. Believe me, I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. But that doesn't mean a forum created for a specific purpose shouldn't be moderated. In the end I just want what the members want. Nobody seemed to raise the question so i thought why not? I was pretty excited to find this site as it seemed to be much more focused and had much more knowledgeable members than other forums. I get where you're coming from, but at the same time this forum isn't limiting ones ability to partake in free speech elsewhere. Politics certainly have a big influence on our investments and in an earlier post I said it should be completely fine to have political discussion if it relates to investing in some way. But I hardly can see how discussing Jesse Smollett would affect my investments. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a place void of political discussion simply to discuss investments. Viking had a good point. It's not easy to handle. But you have to weigh the cost benefit. In the end, I don't have strong opinions one way or another. I can see both sides to the argument which backs up the difficulty of the situation. As John pointed out this isn't a democratic forum (I guess?) but at the same time you think some people (long time members) would have a say. I think Sanjeev makes the best point as to why it exists. But I think it would be beneficial to have "politics" hidden by default so it's not thrust on new members immediately. Self-policing is probably how I will move forward regarding my interactions. Again, to all I don't want to cause any "angst." Just something I picked up on as a new member with a fresh view. Regards

That was my thought at first as well. And politics is easy to get sucked into. I think having the thread kind of pulls you in. But I wasn't here before so I cant really say and I trust what others say about it being better now. I think at the very least the "Political Section" should be hidden from view as a default.

Be willing to spend 100 hours analyzing 50 different companies and at the end of those 100 hours be willing to walk away without taking a position. I see a lot of people who feel obligated to open a position simply because they put in the leg work. In other words, don't let time spent doing DD emotionally affect your decisions.

$HCLP $SLCA After 2015 fracking ground to a pretty sudden halt in the Marcellus and Utica shales. This was primarily due to prices, storage capacity, and logistics. Oil prices are projected to rebound and increased regulation is helping natural gas begin to shift back into the limelight. This time around the target is the Permian shale basin. And this time around the big boys Exxon and Chevron are getting heavily involved. Northern White Frac sand is still the gold standard. HCLP and SLCA are well positioned for the influx of drilling ahead. The key to this game is logistics. Being able to get the sand where it needs to be when it needs to be there at a reasonable price. Both companies have pros and cons. HCLP has done a good job in my opinion developing their silo system (and has signed some big contracts). This is a unique advantage over competition. Personally I don't love the financials of these companies. HCLP just recently converted to a C-corp which hopefully helps them get better rates on capital (which I'd rather they not borrow and use FCF). But as well all know these a boom and bust industries. I like the management at HCLP and they have been very strategic and direct about their projects. A few articles i found interesting. First one is a few years old but very informative. https://www.aogr.com/magazine/frac-facts/permian-driving-frac-sand-supply-shift https://seekingalpha.com/article/4250935-hi-crush-partners-hitting-paydirt http://www.petroleumconnection.com/digest

I've thought about that. I mean, what the hell right? The worst they can say is no. Which is the most likely situation.

Well "you" basically can't. Bonds are a very cloudy market and the brokers like it that way. Really the easiest way would be to get access to a Bloomberg terminal. Doesn't that info have to exist as public information somewhere? Just spit balling here.....not super familiar with corporate bonds, but it seems "transparency" would be required by the SEC? Maybe someone else can speak to the legality side of this?

I think the Finra trade data comes from actual trades reported by brokers and dealers so I think it is highly accurate. There is a also a screener with it which is decent. Not sure about pulling raw data but I think the site is meant for small users as they don't want people pulling 20 pages of data all at once. Inefficient if you ask me. How does one go about getting info from brokers and dealers?

I've used Finra but I've heard that it isn't always accurate on the prices. Also I'm looking form something that I can pull the raw data from and use as I please. Where does finra get their information?

I've been doing a little "educational research" into corporate bonds but I'm having a hard time finding any relevant data. Is there a reason most of this info is locked behind institutions compared to stocks? Is there some way to get access to it via license etc. other than a Bloomberg terminal?

We already have that in place. If I get even one complaint of politics entering into a non-politic board/thread, I investigate. If it is something blatant, then it is removed (not moved). If it is something that is mentioned in passing, then I leave it. So the more complaints I get about a post, the more likely it will be removed. Politics should stay in the Politics section, and those that don't want to waste time with politics, always have the option (which is very easy to do and works extremely effectively) to ignore the Politics board altogether. If we don't have the "Politics" board, then I will be constantly getting complaints about politics in the Investment sections. The manpower needed to monitor that on a free site would no longer make the site free. Cheers! Thanks for the insight!

I appreciate the feedback. Does anyone think a moderation tool would be useful? Example: I alter the discussion of a thread by bringing up politics. Someone reports my comment which sends it for a vote to be removed for politics. If say 5 other members vote yes then the comment is removed from the thread. Or is that just too much work? I know there are some threads that have been going for a long time and it can be frustrating to see them hijacked by politics. Or is self accountability just a better option. I'm happy with whatever. I just noticed a "pushback" recently regarding politics.

I get that, but do you feel it takes away from content? As in people are only coming here for political discussion instead of discussing investing? Just ignoring it doesn't necessarily fix the issue. I get your point though, I can see how it prevents spill over.

As a new member of this site I was pretty excited to have a place to come to talk about value investing. There aren't many places on the web with a good gathering of people who put effort into their posts like they do here. However, I'm sure we can all agree that the "political" posts have been far outnumbering "investing posts" or simply garnering more attention. I'm not sure how long most of you have been members but I can tell its beginning to bring "divisiveness and division" to members here. As someone else pointed out it's beginning to spill over into other threads as well. Now, I am just as guilty as most and can't pass on the temptation to take a jab etc. But I think to keep that sanctity of this forum and have one place untainted by politics we should remove the political section and just refrain from posting political posts. Forums really aren't conducive for political discussion anyways. Not sure what type of moderating there is on here but I would be more than happy to help with this. Or if you think there is someone better because I'm new that's understandable. Undoubtedly there are some posts which will involve politics and investing. Fed Rate hikes, taxes, etc. Those are unavoidable and should be discussed as they are important. But we should do our best to stay on topic and discuss the situation instead of the political opinions behind the situation. So again, I apologize for my conduct and involvement in the overbearing political posts. Regards, Castanza

And you'd almost certainly have more (due to efficiency) is govt stayed out of all those things minus rule of law. Private schools outperform. Private infrastructure works just fine. There are hundreds of examples. me Too bad my parents couldn't afford private school for me. Private school would be much cheaper if the monopoly, i mean govt would remove itself from the public education system and allow the free market to work. Let teacher compete for a salary. It's funny when you get rid of monopolies prices generally go down....You really think if all schools were private that they would hold the entire population hostage with high prices an nowhere to go? When exactly did college begin to get expensive? When did healthcare begin to get expensive?

And you'd almost certainly have more (due to efficiency) is govt stayed out of all those things minus rule of law. Private schools outperform. Private infrastructure works just fine. There are hundreds of examples. me

"I would have almost 2k more a month to invest if I didn't have to pay income tax, SS, and medicare. 24k a year, 480k over 20 years. which would be worth almost double that if invested in SPY (backtest from 1990-2010)." me

No interest in investing in the field. I just like the tech and am looking forward to the EV transition. Just seems like an industry filled with snake oil. I can't make heads or tails about it and that's enough to keep me away.

And where are you putting your money? Automakers? Miners/Metals? Battery manufacturers? This "sector" seems far to broad to me and feels a lot like the "1940's aerospace" example in the Intelligent Investor.

Technology to the rescue. http://whiskyadvocate.com/rapid-aging-whiskey-feature/ "The Science Behind Alternatively Aged Whisky. The Rosies pump ultrasonic waves through whiskey and other spirits to achieve the smoothed-out flavors and textures that typically come from years of barrel aging." Actually pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing. What a time to be alive lol Seems like something that would be targeted and lobbied against by big whiskey companies.

This is nonsense. The reason why unfunded pension liabilities exist is because they weren't funded. Basically you've cut a deal (how much you'll pay) and then you didn't keep your end of the bargain (i.e. you didn't pay). The reason you didn't pay is because you we're selfish. You gave yourself a tax cut. Then in order to reneg you try to deflect and obfuscate. You get on your righteous horse and start bloviate: those damn pensioners, those damned unions, teachers... watch out. But really the reason why the situation exists is because you were a selfish deuce and you didn't pay what you owed. Just in case it's not clear when I say "you" I don't refer to you personally, but to certain groups. When you look at the private sector you have a similar situation where most of the pension plans are underfunded. The principle is the same. It's also greed. You've underfunded the pensions to show better financials. This in turn led to higher bonuses, and gains on stock options from higher valuations. However virtually all the companies that have unfunded pension plans for employees have fully funded pension plans for executives. Funny how that works no? GE is probably the worst private offender on pensions, but I know for a fact that in 2011 the executive pension plan at GE was overfunded. So workers and teachers should watch out but God forbid that Jack Welch should pay for light bulbs and toilet paper. I agree with what you say, the private sector certainly isn't void of these issues. I used to work for UPS and their pension situation is becoming a major issue quickly. The Teamsters Union is mostly to blame. I remember talking with a driver who was 63 (amazing he was still working). When they switched to the pension, whatever company it was pitched the idea that they would be making 11% returns on average......11%! Do pensions ever work out? Even pensions where people do pay fail. As for the public sector my biggest gripe is that these are "guaranteed." For example in PA during the 2008 financial crisis lots of people hit hard times. The pension fund had a lot of issues following 2001 when state lawmakers increased benefits. Turns out 7 years later they started noticing this major issue that was looming. My issue with public sector pensions is its always raiding the taxpayers pocket to make up for the difference needed. It's difficult "increase" benefits when you have a projected model with a static sum but you need to apply that static sum of money to something that can change. As we've seen with healthcare, col, etc (not saying these are directly related to pensions). The public sector is riddled with these "adjustments." I believe it was in Illinois where teachers who retired were expected to receive a 46k a year pension. Turns out when you do the adjustments for COL and everything else they were getting over 70k a year. These pensions are riddled with all kinds of loop holes, issues, etc. It's unsustainable. Again, I am not faulting individuals who retire with these pensions. Who wouldn't take advantage of they system? What they do (teachers, firefighters, police, etc etc....everyone but tax officials ;) ) is overall good for the country. But the system needs changed. Why shouldn't they just receive a 401k like everyone else? Makes you wonder after a while who the real "public servants" are.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Have you heard of MGP Ingredients: https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/high-spirits-blog/mgp-ingredients-lawrenceburg/ They are contract producers for small label US whiskeys. You want to make Castanza whiskey? Call em up and they can make it happen. That's not exactly unique though. It's basically your own label on their whiskey. As mentioned in the article, the most important factor to good liquor is "time." It's difficult for small fry companies to sit on losses 10 years straight until their bourbon is aged. I'll admit, this seems like a relatively decent company with a decent client base. But from a marketing aspect I can't help but see the shortcomings. It doesn't feel as local as craft beer which are generally brewed on site. Therefore I think the "time" element is the largest barrier to entry in this market. But like I said. I'm not vested in any "beverages." And this article is a good example of why. I don't understand the market well enough. Too much regulation exists in it for me to find it interesting and lastly who knows what consumer trends will be once the boomers die off (no offense to the boomers). Do millennials have enough money for expensive liquor? All i remember from my college days is Kamchatka vodka and Early Times whiskey.