Castanza

Yeah, I agree with you that Castanza's post is all over the place. It conflates all sorts of different issues and games (Diablo Immortal hasn't even been released yet!) in ways that are not productive. The ATVI thread has lots of clear thinking on the video game industry in general. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would confine all video game related posts exclusively to that thread. Diablo Immortal is a huge disappointment before launch. They went against their entire player base by choosing to only launch it on mobile. That was my point. I recommend watching the Q&A. But if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. That's how I view the gaming industry and it's enough to keep me out of it.

You're quite unnecessarily snarky when discussing game publishers on this forum. I haven't claimed to be an authority in the gaming industry. Nor did I say the industry is dying...I said it's in a lull (sentiment and innovation wise). I think at some point $EA, $TTWO, $ATVI become attractive. But as with most entertainment industries, consumer sentiment does play a big role. I personally don't like investing in companies whos share price is heavily influenced by consumer sentiment. Most of the gaming stocks have been trading at pie in the sky valuations. They are only now approaching proper valuations (IMO) as their share price approaches what fundamentals might indicate. The "hype" is gone and the sentiment is absolutely affecting share price.

Discuss the video game industry as a whole. Consumer/company trends. Lots of stuff you got wrong in this reply... Free to play means consumers will hate it? 4 of the top 5 MOST PLAYED games in the US are free-to-play. In fact, only 3 of the top 10 are paid games at all. I see the statement all over this forum that F2P means loot boxes. It doesn't. League of Legends, Fortnite, CS GO, Dota 2 - all F2P and all monetized via cosmetic purchases, not loot boxes. And gamers love that stuff. Gaming industry seems highly fractured? Over the past ten years it's becoming increasingly consolidated, and likely will continue to consolidate as the gravity of the large publishers sucks in smaller publishers and dev teams. The top 10 publishers have almost 50% of the market share and that number is only increasing. Consumers are constantly disappointed with AAA releases? Red Dead Redemption 2 sold 24 million copies in like 6 months. God of War sold 10 million copies last year. There are some extremely highly anticipated games, some with new IP, coming in the next year or two (Cyberpunk, Death Stranding, Last of Us 2, etc). Frankly, sounds like you're just shooting from the hip on this response and haven't really done any work in the space. Fallout 76 Anthem The Division 2 Apex (dwindling) Watchdogs Starwars Battlefront 2 Destiny 2 Diablo Immortal Battlefield V Sea of Thieves Far Cry: New Dawn Assasins Creed whatever its called These games were also highly anticipated. EA has been developing Anthem since 2013 and it was pretty much dead in the water a month after release. EA earnings have been flat for 4 years. You named one or two successful games. You're also completely negating the relationship aspect between companies and consumers and dev teams. How many CEO's of gaming companies have we seen come out in opposition to their consumers the past two years? How many have we seen come out and admit their games were flops etc. How many issues have we seen between internal dev teams (acquired from elsewhere) and the company heads? Consumers are sick of the cash over quality mindset of the publishers. Releasing games before they are finished and then charging for DLC content that should have been included in the first place. Go On Twitch, YT, Reddit and all you will hear and see is negative sentiment (a bit anecdotal but still important). These platforms are quite important for advertising and generating interest. Yes there are successful games out there. Overwatch, LoL, Dota, etc. But I think you're missing the overall sentiment of the industry (and that's what I'm focusing on). Red Dead 2 launch was great and they sold 24 million copies but how did the stock do? It dropped like 11% on good news. Publishers seem like they are resting on hype of the old standby title names (FIFA is 40% rev for EA 2016). COD sales were pretty good and broke the downward trend we have been seeing since 2011. But that's most likely due to the battle royal approach (how long will that last?). If video game companies are doing so good why are they listing AAA games 50% off months after release? Franchise fatigue is real. Look at the stocks of these companies. They have been in free fall for awhile now. The question is are you comfortable buying at this level? I'm not. "Free to play.....meaning loot boxes and other in-game purchases"

Sold to close Aug 16 $17.5 calls at 76% gain. Could be more upside but I couldn't pass up 76% gain in a matter of 15 days. Might buy in again if there is a pullback.

I'm sure the British thought the Patriots/Rebels were lefties when they sought independence...thank goodness for lefties! Cheers! No one is stopping them from leaving and colonizing somewhere else! Most of the lefties run all of the tech companies...you would be left with only Twitter. And you would have nothing to ever watch again on television other than Fox News and 100 Huntley. Cheers! 1.) The British were the lefties. The Patriots were escaping socialistic policies 2.) The world would gladly move on without Google or Twitter. It's funny that all of these "crucial" software companies built their products in the most capitalistic free market system. But indeed, a day to reflect on the history of this very young nation. All of the sacrifice, hard work, human ingenuity, and progress. Only a handful of generations ago it was formed and she is no doubt a work in progress. It will be interesting to see where we end up in 50 years! Happy belated birthday!

Picked up some MSG too this AM at~$271. I am not sure what caused the sudden downdraft , but noticed that MSGN is doing even worse, is this team related? The Brooklyn Nets just signed a few super stars that will likely draw crowds there. Could possibly have something to do with that. I imagine, Durant and Irving will draw quite the crown in NY. It's been awhile since there was a true NBA superstar in the city. That being said, I'm long MSG. The Knicks are too iconic and so is the stadium. MSG is to America what the Colosseum was to Rome. https://gothamist.com/2019/07/01/kevin_durant_kyrie_irving_headed_to.php

As someone who thinks the government shouldn't forgive student debt or give out guaranteed loans to 18 year old kids, I agree with what you're saying (as a first step). We need to move away from this for profit, sky rocketing education cost model that has been ushered in by government. The best way as you pointed out would be to incentivize certain careers. One, I don't think government loans should be given to students unless they meet strict GPA and SAT scores coming out of HS. Two loans should only be given for students who are pursuing STEM careers. Perhaps even do a census and give loans to the top 25 career field demands. Three in order to keep receiving the ability to take the loans out students need to have strict GPA requirements (depending on major) to meet. There needs to be terms for a major change as well. Limit them to changes within the top 25. All of that being said I don't think that is a permanent solution. It will create a lot of division and issues if done for a long period. But it is a step in the right direction. I think the best process forward is to start introducing apprenticeships in high school. If a Junior in High School has a good inclination for math and engineering then have a course which allows them to work at a local engineering firm for a few hours a week. Not only does this teach the kid real life work vs study, it gives employers good insight to potential candidates. I bet a lot of these employers would be willing to give out scholarships (with terms) if they had a kid they really liked. I also think that apprenticeships could be used as a path to a career directly out of high school without needing a college degree. I mean how many careers are out there that really don't require a whole lot of education. Maybe they require a certification or something that a local employer would be willing to train and test their apprentice on. But there are TONS of business jobs that shouldn't require a degree. We need to bring value back to k-12 education. Not diminish it by making a bachelors degree the new high school GED. We also need to bring value back to a bachelors degree. Not diminish it by making masters degrees the new bachelors. I mean it's quite ridiculous...The issue is employers want to know if a person is smart enough to do a simple job....But we are using a bachelors degree as a checkbox when that is not its intended purpose. We already see this hypocritical attitude and standard in the business world. Look how many people run successful businesses with just a high school degree. Look how many entrepreneurs there are with only a high school degree. You mean to tell me those same people need a 4 year degree from a state university to manage a Sherwin Williams?

Lance, I always find your positions quite interesting. Do you use IAU as a hedge? Hi Castanza - yes, I do. I’m concerned that rates are headed lower, particularly between now and the election. I already hold a large position in TLT and don’t want to add to it (will opportunistically take this off if rates continue lower). Also I’m not comfortable shorting the indexes even though they seem overvalued here. Thus, IAU it is. Thanks Lance Thanks Lance, appreciate the response.

Lance, I always find your positions quite interesting. Do you use IAU as a hedge?

I’m reasonably sure most of them will spend it on their liquor of choice within a day or two. But you can't be sure. And that's such a specific example lol. Anyways. I agree with Stahleyp in terms of euphoria. granted I wasn't an investor during the 1999 bubble. But I have done quite a bit of reading on it. Same with the 1983 video game bubble. To me it looks more like we might have localized bubbles within specific markets (think tech subscription services and SaaS, auto industry). I do think a lot of the hype simply is being expresses with "the changing of the guard" so to speak. What I mean by that is the rapid influx of millennials and other young investors entering the market. This demographic communicates much differently and it very much driven and motivated by trends and fads. I think it's easy for this generation to latch onto IPO's etc. and then blast it all over social media and other outlets. I think a bubble does exist, but I don't see it at 1999 levels where everyone was throwing every last penny at basically every company that launched.

Never said it was....simply pointing out a fact.

You can't artificially create demand by printing money and giving it to poor people. Policy built on hopeful premises is dangerous.

Well there is about 573k hiding in the Wallstreetbets sub on Reddit. And a few million more scattered across the site. Truly entertaining to see their logic and reasoning.

Two "jammed" owners of comparable property should buy each other's property (swap) at a low (or at least realistic) valuation. Or would that be unlawful? I was thinking the same exact thing. I would highly doubt there would be a loophole that obvious. Couldn't you also just sell it to a friend for a low price and then buy it back for the same low price?

I think the main issue is it's very difficult to decide whether a stock price is irrational or not. Greg I think you are right to an extent when you say we are not looking at things in the right way. But what is the right way? If you can't go by fundamentals all you're left with is human psychology. That is difficult to quantify. As to your cooler I have a Coleman cooler from the 90's that keeps ice for about 5-6 days. Use it frequently :p Also, Walmart sells a knockoff Yeti and so does RTIC.

Really admired the humbleness of the Toronto team. Leonard, Van Fleet, Lowery and the rest of them simply went out and played hard. Highly respectable, well disciplined talented team that earned it.

http://clarkstreetvalue.blogspot.com/2019/06/spirit-mta-sells-mta-assets-to-hpt.html

Sold 75% of my HSY - Hershey position. Merely profit taking as it was my best performer this past year. Cost average was 95ish and sold today for 136. My thesis hasn't changed much on the company in general, but this rapid ramp up in price made me want to take some profits. Edit: Tariff tensions are making me a bit uneasy with HSY. The three Mexican plants are quite important in supporting the North American supply chain. I'm uncertain how tariffs will affect the NA segment. NA makes up about 89% of HSY market where Brazil, MX, China, India make up most of the remaining market share. India is their fastest growing international market. One thing I do like is Hershey owns all but 2(located in Georgia and NY) manufacturing plants. And in general, their products are manufactured in the marketplace which they will be selling. This helps reduce risk somewhat. Noticed a large surge in $125 August puts today and figured, might as well take profits. Honestly, this has been one of my best plays. Link to the 10-k if anyone was interested. Don't think I've seen this stock covered on here. https://www.thehersheycompany.com/content/dam/corporate-us/documents/annual-reports/2019-proxy-statement.pdf

Non Facebook link

For anyone else who loves learning about the ins and outs of a companies history in 15min or less check out this YT channel. It's called "Company Man." The creator (author?) does a great job narrating and there is a good variety of companies. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQMyhrt92_8XM0KgZH6VnRg Cheers

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation" Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study. Science does not find truth, it approaches it.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place. I disagree. Matter doesn't need to "know" that the law of gravity exists. Matter has no conscientiousness. The laws of physics are what they are, whether or not anyone "knows" what they are. The universe has followed the laws of physics since long before Newton or Einstein. Your example of that experiment where they had to change the rules, just proves that life might be able to come about even if the rules where different. We know life is possible in this universe, simply because we are here. Yes, but matter cannot act outside of the laws of gravity....that's my point. Life being derived from nothing is not a law. It is not seen anywhere in physics or biology. So we cannot expect that it has happened in the past. Us existing isn't enough to draw a conclusion that life exists elsewhere. I think math more supports that we are completely alone. The entire human existence is a mere microsecond on the entire time scale. If you take you're idea that life probably exists elsewhere would it not also make sense that there should be evidence for life everywhere? The Universe is supposedly 14 Billion years old. There are 40 Billion "earth like" planets in our galaxy alone that could potentially support life. It would take roughly 100 million years using the Von Neumann Probes method to explore our entire galaxy. So in that case wouldn't it be reasonable for evidence of life elsewhere be abundant? That time-frame has been exceeded 100 fold and yet nothing....It's not much different than Stephen Hawking disproving time travel by having that room setup in his house. Or the roadkill theory disproving Bigfoot.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else. Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition? If life exists here, then it is possible that exists in other places too. Life exists, so we can say that life originated somewhere. That could be either here on Earth, somewhere else and was transported to Earth (naturally or by other life), or it may have come to be in multiple places in the universe independently. Even if we are living in a simulation, that means that intelligent beings created that simulation and are living in a universe where life originated somehow. We do not know the answers to these questions and nothing can be ruled out. There does not have to be anything greater than ourselves. That is a subjective statement anyway depending on your definition of "greater". There may or may not be something other than ourselves. I agree exactly with this. My point is that people want to say "fact" when in reality nobody knows and science is far from answering these questions. So really no hypothesis is more ridiculous than another. I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos. But to each their own! Anyways I'll leave you with some quotes from various scientists from various beliefs and fields of study. I'll let you get back to your UFO discussion :P Sorry to derail the thread! Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2) George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3) Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4) Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5) Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6) John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8) Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9) Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10) Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12) Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13) Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14) Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall� be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity. Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18) Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19) Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20) Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21) Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22) Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23) Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25) There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)