Xerxes

With the re-pricing of treasuries and global assets, I think “the next $ trillion FANG” can now de de-rated into “the next $600 billion FANG”.

Berkshire swallowing Markel is a highly bearish news for Markel shareholders who prides themselves in owning a Berkshire like entity back in time in 1990s. The whale had its fill for now with Allenghany. Not interested in Markel

My strategy is based on a key guiding principal: I am dumber than I think I am. With that in mind : So 40% of the portfolio is with BRK, FFH, BAM, Onex etc. Let them do their thing. 12% commodities 16% in big tech (heavy index exposure) 20% on blue chip basket the balance on semi-rubbish I got hammered on the rubbish stuff and big tech. But since I will be net buyer for the next 15 years, will continue to accumulate slowly. i employ zero margin

Sometimes you have a blackhole in the middle of a Galaxy.

i wasn’t talking about the deposits in the banks. That is clearly on the balance sheet as a source of funding Was talking about the stocks, bonds that the client owns that belong to the client. Those do not belong on the bank balance sheet. BUT the bank capture the management fees of that asset under management through its income statement.

It is all the same. If you use cash on hand from balance sheet, if you raise cash via equity issuance or take more debt to put cash on balance sheet. All three results in using cash from the company own balance sheet and resources to invest in that Luna venture. in contrast to using client money (not on your balance sheet) to seed investment

Citigroup must be managing several trillions dollars of assets. They do not appear on its balance sheet. It is not Citigroup money. I think same concept.

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)