ValueArb

On the surface arresting Timur Ivanov seems like a very direct move against Shoigu. That said I don't we disagree by that much. I will just point out that the Tsar has been incredibly reluctant to move Shoigu out, despite his many failures. So maybe a better explanation is that Putin Soprano is very tight with his capitans because they stole Russia together. Shoigu is either his Silvio or Bobby Baccalieri, either competently doing his bidding behind the scenes or incompetent but unassailably loyal. Sometimes I imagine Putin in a rage over the failures in Ukraine that were directly linked to graft and corruption (like failing truck tires) and then Shoigu reminds Putin that he got the bosses share of the money they stole from the truck maintenance budget.

I think Israel should immediately halt all military activities in Gaza, and conduct an orderly withdrawal, just as soon as all the hostages are released and Hamas leaders in custody.

Patron Silver.

Looks like Shoigu is going to get arrested next. Putin is probably shoring up support beforehand to avoid Shoigu taking him out in a coup. https://www.politico.eu/article/bribery-case-puts-russian-defense-minister-sergei-shoigu-in-the-crosshairs/

There is a hypothesis that liquidity needs determines short term price action. When more people need cash than they need more savings, general market prices will decline as sellers outnumber the buyers. When the inverse is true it will rise. And there is a corollary that when liquidity is high money first flows to the most speculative investments because their values are less knowable, at the same time investors are flush and more willing to gamble. For example most won't overpay for GM because its long record gives good reason to believe it will trade in a relatively tight earnings multiple range. But those people may happily overpay for Tesla because its much shorter track record demonstrates that it can trade at almost any multiple. So crypto is like the ultimate expression of that theory, without any binding valuation metrics to hold it down and a history replete with massive bull runs, its catnip for investors flush with cash looking for outsize returns. If these hypothesis are true, they also work in reverse. When liquidity tightens, people sell the most speculative positions first, so crypto and tech stocks would trail the market. Not sure how well the data actually matches these hypothesis, the real world is complex and messy with millions of independent agents making independent decisions and being driven by other factors besides a simplistic liquidity == gamble-gamble mental model. So it would be surprising if the effect was so strong to be irrefutable, but anecdotally there is plenty of evidence that can be cherry picked post hoc to support it FWIW.

This guy will be a hero in New York, until the first time he tries to raise rents.

In BlackRock we trust.

The very idea that any reasonable peace plan was possible is de facto absurd. It would involve Putin giving security guarantees to Ukraine that it could never trust.

What does that mean?

Weird how a decade of FSB bribery, corruption and undermining can affect a local economy. Of course you aren’t hearing from the Vatniks on the front line. Just those lucky enough to avoid conscription. . weird how the eastern regions weren’t a problem until little green men crossed the border en mass. I guess you think the maiden uprising throwing out Putins hand picked President was the problem? Tell it to Wagner Group. Well positioned with blocking battalions to force mountains of under trained vatniks with 50 year old weapons into the meat grinder.

I used to believe they sandbag delivery estimates so Russia can't fully prepare for them before they arrive. But last week rumors were being printed about Ukraine getting ATACMS with unitary warheads before any have been seen in use, so I'm probably wrong about that.

These are very good points. Buffett sees exactly what they do and by all his public statements he's been very pleased with their contributions for a long time.

I wasn't referring to Buffett, I was referring to what happens after he's gone. Clearly it's unlikely he'll ever issue any dividends because it's antithetical to his life long goal of making his "painting" as large as possible. He didn't even start buybacks until his 6th decade as CEO, but at least in that case it directly increases per share value.

That just makes it worse, no? It would mean Combs and Weschler are going to be stuck managing such an enormous portfolio that it's going to be very difficult to beat the market over time.

https://www.ft.com/berkshire According to the FT analysis the last decade hasn't been kind to Warren's public company investments (trailing the S&P 500), but both Ted and Todd have done much worse. Their methodology is pretty ad hoc, so can't attest to the reasonableness of their conclusions. They make one good point about Berkshire's "permanent capital" giving them an edge that few managers have. But I think overall running a $350B actively managed portfolio is probably the most challenging situation an investment manager ever had. So it's not surprising that even Buffett is trailing the S&P for long periods now. I'm not sure what the solution can be after Buffett, I doubt the shareholder base has the stomach for an enormous one time dividend or whether it would be enough to lighten those chains to return the portfolio to consistent market beating returns. Even a $250B distribution would leave them with over $100B to allocate, and even if they produce stellar returns that's from barely 10% of Berkshire assets so how much could it move the needle?