Xerxes

Correct he means investing through his balance sheet as oppose to his client’ funds that he is managing.

https://s27.q4cdn.com/973063916/files/doc_news/2022/A-Letter-From-our-CEO-Mike-Novogratz_5.18.2022.pdf

Speaking of geography the British historian from pre-WW1 era had said: “who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world." Naturally he was a product of the Great Game era and Russian-British rivalry to win the contest in Central Asia. Decades later, the quote was updated by a Dutch historian to say "Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world." it helps being on the rim.

I guess depends when in history. Mongols were far from democracies, but … In their glory days, Mongols were the most industrious in warfare, their mobile blitz-like battlefield strategies were centuries ahead of their time (and i am not taking about their taste for massacres, which is what they are actually known for). in contrast, Europeans in 12-13th centuries were in the Dark Age, fighting the medieval wars with their castles and peasant armies. It will take several hundred years for them to evolve their military, which also coincided with the rise of nationhood in Europe. One could say Europe was in a “secular bear market” from the fall Roman Empire to the renaissance. (They didn’t read Asimov’ Foundation Trilogy) Also, one of the reason why Europe got ahead, is because it was saved from the Mongolian invasion and literarily the Wrath of Khan, following the death of Otagi Khan. Everybody else got re-baselined back to zero. so granted post-renaissance Europe did pretty well, but how much of that was a consequence of not getting nuked by the Great Khan. how much Of Great Britain success rested on it being separated from the main continent by a body water. Geography played a role too.

i remember my first few years in Canada when I met bunch of Iraqis. We all got along and had good laughs. We were kids of course, but we also lived through the 8-year long Iran-Iraq war in our respective countries. But we were all clear of what was going on with our so called governments. There was no personal animosity. I think it really depends where you are during the war (in the cities close to the border or further away) and your personal suffering. I am sure an Iranian who lived close to the border who lost a leg, along with half of his family and has scars of the chemical attacks would feel very differently. But again I don’t think there would be a personal hate. And same vice versa with an Iraqi victim. at the end of the day, normal people just want to get along with their lives. What is the population of Ukraine and how many of them had a direct loss. Not economical harm or losing investments, but a direct irreversible personal loss.

for those of you that are familiar with the history of Mongol empire in Russia and the Golden Horde, … there is potential (I think) 40 years from now for Ukraine to become to Russia what the Duchy of Moscow became to the Golden Horde

disagree. Russia is in conflict and has resources in Ukraine. Admitting Ukraine to NATO would mean a formal immediate declaration/state of war against Russia. Not talking nuclear war here and don’t mean to suggest Russia’ convention forces can do anything. Nonetheless are we ready to send your sons and daughters in the trenches in the Eastern Europe to fight and to die.

Viking The enemy gets a vote too. Ukrainian military victory on the field is one thing, getting to a ceasefire, discussing the state of borders, needs the other side on the table being willing too. This could easily be a de-escalating phase, but the actual state of war can go on for years. it is no peace, if resident in Kiev would need to look out for that random ballistic/cruise missile coming their way. After the end of the Korean War, United States and People Republic of China remained in a state of war for 20 years until the Kissinger/Nixon pivot. Never mind that today Russia and Japan are technically not closed out their conflict from WW2 with a peace treaty. Still pending …

^^^^ could always be worse: a plan to spin-off the asset manager (Hambla etc) to “unearth value”/“crystallize value” … all those good stuff I hate

i had no idea there was QT in 2008. Did you mean 2018 ?

I present to you Shaddam IV

I listened to it. Pretty good. Liked how he describe current market condition (post-invasion/higher rate) being something that their team is more familiar with as oppose to mid-March 2020. It seems that the same discipline being applied to individual name seem to be applied at “macro event situations”. March-April 2020 was not a fat pitch but post-Feb 2022 was

what i find interesting is that the BTC mega-bulls seem to have only one version of the future. It may very well work out, but WILL YOU be around to see it. .... i.e. when MSTR keeps buying only BTC with its FCF, when Galaxy Digital got rid of its gold (they had some, given that its CEO was a macro-trader)... i.e. ARK etc. As if no other future is possible, other the one you have decided it will be. And no other short-term future is possible on the trendline. There is a certain level of hubris. Contrast that with folks that think in terms of a distribution of events in probablistic terms. Yes now and then, those folks miss a big win, we call them loosers & out of touch, BUT they stay afloat.

Or $25 for the whole for Mr Buffett

On the second point, volatility should definitly go down as adaption takes hold, ideally, but adaption also brings in Wall Street and its margin casinos etc. bringing back excesses both to the upside and dowside. In this current bear market, once the excesses are washout, one should hope that the die hard complex should remain intact as a seed for the next bull market. It is clear this cycle would have gone much longer in a QE infinity scenario unrelated: Bitcoin whale Michael Saylor tries to defuse fears over MicroStrategy margin call (yahoo.com)

Saw an interview with a rattled and nervous Mike Novogratz (spell). I like him. Sticking his neck out and staying the course. at the end of the day, the mega-bulls kept selling this as inflation hedge, but that statement had a disclaimer written with font 3 in the foot print : if QE-forever persists. I still think it is all about the “rate” of inflation and not level of inflation in of itself.

Cevian i disagree. I think given how illiquid & complex it is, it tend to be less correlated to indices. And it’s day to day movement are largely irrelevant. quarterly updates and the state of the insurance market are the real driver behind the stock and it happens in step change. And not the indices. when I see FFH I see a stock that hasn’t lost 40-70% of its value. This what we should look at. It is good to have as a diversifier of opinion (i.e. a capital allocator at the helm that sticks to a certain framework (something works and sometimes it doesn’t).

If she says otherwise others will complain why are the even looking at the stock market, that is not their job

For the life of me I don’t understand why Prem is not short the market. It seems so easy to do. when rates goes up, that is when the shorts go on. not when rates go down

At some point there ought to be a thread for BOTTOM IS COMING starting the 28 page discussion semi-perma-bear Jeremi Grantham always complained that the 2001-2003 bear market didn’t take the S&P500 below is a certain trend line that it should have. So it wasn’t a perfect correction. That was 20 years ago …. And rising Who cares ? Don’t get carried away by being a perfect bear. Each time it will be different and you ought to deploy if risk reward of individual name gets tilted in your favour. at the moment there is broad psychological good feeling safety of being a loud bear. It is like the analyst that keep raising price targets in a bull market.

Sometimes it is fashionable to be a bull, sometimes it is fashionable to be bear and point all the historical anecdotes of bear markets. I don’t know more than the next person but if inflation has peaked, you will only see it six months from now when you look back and say ahhh that was the peak ! Reverse wealth effect (stocks going down) + higher interest rate + higher cost for goods/services + higher fuel prices are all having a damping effect on “demand” and that will work itself through the system … lower economic demand means relatively lower inflation. I think our focus should be on the “rate of change” in inflation and not the “absolute level of inflation”.

At least, it will no longer be illegal to say war … though you would still be arrested I reckon. unrelated just saw this. There are a lot of coverage about Russia running out of tanks etc. Our NATO inventories are 1/3 empty since the war started.

CNN reporting what it looks like a formal declaration of war by Kremlin (against Ukraine) on May Day is coming. ————- unrelated, here is an interesting anecdote for those interested. While most folks are aware of Dec 7 pearl harbour attack, and the subsequent declaration of war by FDR, that declaration of war was against Japan ONLY and not the Axis powers. FDR was itching to fight the Nazi, but still couldn’t do it yet. Hitler however got sooo excited by the Japanese attack that he gave a hand to FDR by declaring war against the U.S. in Reichstag on Dec 11. And that is how the formal war started between the Reich and the US: by an overexcited Hitler, who wanted to egg the Japanese to enter the war against the Soviet Union. however, Japan never entered the war against the Soviet Union, until the latter did weeks before the atomic destruction of Hiroshima by invading Manchuria. Most folks looking back have a hard time understanding the nuances. But formal declaration matter. It was very difficult at the time for FDR to commit to Europe after the Japanese “sneak” attack. And had Hitler been less excited a different outcome would have came even with the Americans eventually entering the war on the side of allies.

it is a very grey zone between offense and defense. A lot of countries conduct proxy military operations/wars outside their border so that they do not have to do in their own borders. I can think of Iran, Isreal, UAE, U.S., Russia etc. of doing that for years and decades. The problem is most normal folk live in illusionary world, where they think, it is OK for one side to do it but it is not ok for the other side to do it. I would add that while people complain about war profiteering, I for one believe we need a strong military industrial complex. Not to the point of shaping international politics to capture market share and profit, but just to have that industral base. (think Japan), It can go nuclear if it is choose to.

"War is a racket" book was actually on my to read list since 2010. Sadly, I have not read it yet. War Is A Racket: Original Edition : Butler, Smedley D: Books - Amazon