scorpioncapital

So basically IB just has to flip a switch and produce T5008's with avg cost as required by the government since other brokers can do it? Not sure why a company would produce a government mandated form using a method that is explicitly not allowed by said government. It's almost useless to even go through the effort to generate it. If it wasn't a tax form, I'd say it didn't matter. T5008 instructions says, "The preparer is expected to take reasonable measures in order to ensure that the amount reported in box 20 is correct." What does it mean correct? and reasonable measures? I would say CRA is also partly to blame for this very vague instruction for preparers of this form on how to fill in this box since they could just explicitly say that average cost method must be calculated in the box. The conspiracy theorist in me makes me think they dont' say so that if FIFO is used and peope use that they'll just get more tax revenue over time since over many years, first lots will have low cost basis and shares tend to rise over time.

so which is it? did they or did they not get approval? I find it very unusual that T5008 information year after year would be incorrect. What matters is consistent treatment. If they change it now, it would create another mess.

#1 is higher reward. Buffet is a bit disingenious when on CNBC he says don't use leverage because you can get rich slow and don't risk what you need for what you don't. I mean reading that I'm thinking, you need the carry cost - your rent and living expenses. It won't work if you don't have the day job, or enough capital to slowly sell down . The guy had a safety net and investment partners and a salary so of course he could think no leverage. You could do #2 on leverage...it might be better than #1 and crash and burn. But the reward of #1 can be so large. Why not a mix of #1 and #2?

http://www.omaha.com/money/buffett/why-warren-buffett-vetoed-the-color-of-the-cover-for/article_4ce65a51-df34-570f-a672-91910030f7ca.html The colour of the annual reports.

I believe you can also skip between two classes of shares...for example some stocks have a A & B class which would be considered different, although economically would be almost the same to a small investor.

There seems to be some sort of Peking order for quality - an unquantifiable variable. I mean, you can have an industrial or consumer company with a strong economic moat with 5% organic growth and will have a high PEG ratio - but it will stay that way short of a major calamity. Even then, it will go down in relation to lower quality stocks by similar quantities. So yeah, quality, industry, and leverage matter. But if all those variables check out , then PEG can be a 2nd filter of cheapness, in fact once the preconditions are checked off your list, PEG is better than PE because growth is a very important element of valuation. Without growth you tend to get the one pop value stocks or perhaps even value traps. However quality and a clean balance sheet are so important as engines of future growth, you rarely get an apple to apple comparison

Concentration is very risky in the case where you do not control the management and the management has a defect and cannot be displaced. This is the one case I can think of where it is deadly to concentrate. If the management is solid, intelligent, not committed down one wrong road, then giving up control is ok too. Or control the entity yourself - but then you have to watch that you yourself don't turn out to have all the weaknesses of a bad manager.

Perhaps HCHC?

I get the impression the dynamic he describes about selling a 100 p/e bond and buying a 20 or lower P/E Berkshire stock is a process that may be going in reverse but with quite some lag. I mean he did wait for the bond to reach 100 p/e, not 80 or 70 or 60. However today the S&P yield is 1.8% and the 10 year bond is about 3%. The ratio he describes is 0.88% to 2.5% cash yield or 2.8x. Not sure if this suggests that the two should diverge by this number for the very reverse dynamic to occur. However eyeballing it this would imply a a 4 to 4.5% 10 year and adding in a bit for dividend growth. I don't remember where I saw the formula but something about a maximum stock p/e in relation to long bond. If the long bond is 3%, that's a P/e of 33...so is it better to buy a stock at 1/2 that (16.5x p/e max?) to be conservative +/-?

It doesn't have to be Venezuela North...it just has to be a slow water torture. I see a competitive problem. I mean there are enough nations competing for capital so why Canada? And it's not really a problem of socialism either, as I used to think. For example, Belgium is a very socialist nation...they have a pretty high income tax (although strangely still somewhat lower than Canada). But they have zero capital gains tax on personal offices. Where do you think people would prefer to be resident when moving their capital?

I think retail is a tough business - and strangely enough , I even see softness in e-commerce retail. ALL retail, including e-commerce, seems to suffer from the same defects, namely very commoditized markets with just massive inventory and no distinctions. There's no loyalty online, offline, there is almost nowhere to hide.

Usually the bonds are good if purchased at a reasonable rate, but let's say TIPS. Real estate and good equities are long-term inflation protection, short-term people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction, selling when they are actually the only protection. But the problem is the purchase price. You have to eyeball what you think inflation might be, and have an initial yield and what you thinkt he growth of earnings will be to justify the price paid before the inflation hits.

Real estate , bonds, and equities with economic moats tend to at least keep up with inflation - usually inflation + some real return.

Rick Rule wrote many years ago how investors were irrational to think that an African gold miner was safer than a BC gold miner. His thesis was that in BC , a certain socialist mentality can more easily expropriate you slowly through taxes or red tape than in a capitalist continent where there is honour but no rules.

"“Companies in Buffett’s portfolio have extorted windfall profits, ripped off taxpayers, and abused customers,” he says, adding that Buffett “makes no secret of his fondness for monopoly. He repeatedly highlights the key to his personal fortune: finding businesses surrounded by a monopoly moat, keeping competitors at bay.”" Hmmm, same as governments I would say - another side of the coin. Government is the ultimate monopoly.

Seems Buffett has sold out almost the entire IBM position. Did he find something better than 11x earnings or better prospects and is loading his cash reserves?

"This transaction was solely motivated by our desire to eliminate the regulatory requirements that come with ownership levels above 10 percent,” Buffett said in a statement." I'm not too clear - this is not a bank stock, does Berkshire have a sub-10% requirement for refinery/oil stocks too? It sounds like in this case regulatory requirements were too onerous - but what would they be? Also, is it correct to understand that *either* Berkshire desires to own <= 10% of this OR it can own 100% (a full buyout) but not anything in-between?

I think one should start with the base case that the market is relatively efficient and built into prices is some inkling of earning power and business quality. Of course, around the edges, the market is not efficient at all and this spells opportunity. On a temporary basis if you look at some of berkshire's smaller moves like SYF and some store REITs you would think they believe the consumer is under-earning! And in fact all eyeballs were on the 2.9% wage inflation. If wages rise, perhaps consumer stocks and financials are under-earning simply because the consumer is under-earning :) "It was the fifth consecutive year of annual household debt growth with increases in the mortgage, student, auto and credit card categories." https://seekingalpha.com/news/3330822-u-s-household-debt-soars-13t

"it's not a question of whether the infrastructures need improvement. It is how we will pay for them! " Not at all...I have lived and know several countries that have a very low flat income tax (<= 15%) and no capital gains tax (0-5%) and has good infrastructure that runs efficiently. So how it can it be justified to pay 30 to 50% tax and have crumbling infrastructure? It is a question of waste and incompetence, possibly redistributing the funds in the wrong direction, not money.

If you don't put sufficient funds into your winners -i.e too diversified or unsure, then your result will be somewhat more muted. You need both to be right, a good idea and enough conviction to put a large amount into it - perhaps 30 to 40% of your net worth - but you better be right or else disaster!

So let's say interest rates are really low - and stock valuations are high because people pay a high multiple to earnings. Now, let's say growth rates vary by company - some can only do 5% per year others can do 15%. If inflation hits, some have said that value - or getting your profits out and in large amounts is key and that stock prices contract their multiples. So if I have even a high flying growth stock growing at 15% for 10 years and then the multipel shrinks from 40x to 20x, the result won't be too satisfactory. Likewise, if a cheap stock which only grows 5% has the same multiple, the result is perhaps a little better but not much. Since it isn't a fast grower, the multiple won't expand much. For example let's say IBM is trading at 12x FCF and grows 5%. The multiple may be the same and you get 5%. Or it might expand a little bit depending on what rates will be at the end of the 10 year period. I mean real growth rate here over inflation. Is this what they call the equity risk premium? I found this study - https://www.franklintempleton.lu/downloadsServlet?docid=hmbg58za But it only uses the average S&P P/E and doesn't have a formula for each individual stock and growth rate. It seems that whether there is inflation or not, growth is STILL the most important unknown variable - as well as the ultimate rate of interest (how can one invest not knowing this?). A company that is priced below its ultimate growth rate can expand the multiple and those - like many today, priced above their growth rate may contract the multiple. In other words, is it really true that value beats growth in inflationary periods or is it in fact garp - growth at a reasonable price that beats? On top of this, inflation tends to reduce the growth rate of some businesses versus others, so it's not an independent input. Does anyone know if there is a formula to determine how much contraction in multiple one should expect inputting these variables: ultimate interest rate, growth rate, current P/E ratio - or possibly expansion? For example if bonds are yielding now a p/e of 33 and they go to 20 (5% 10 year bond), what should one expect the p/e ratio contraction/expansion of a stock to be at various rates of growth in earnings?

This would make sense for very competitive industries but wide moat or oligopoly stocks should be fine?

I would look at IB family office account, or something similar.

There have been times when rates were so low that stocks had a 50x p/e...just saying things may be elevated but look at bitcoin as an example of how high a bubble can go.

I'm not sure citizenship matters, but residence. IB is organized with divisions usually by continent...so for example a resident in the Americas (north or south) would go with IB USA, one resident in Europe with IB UK and so forth...I see no reason why it can't be opened , just select your country of residence. Citizenship is just an identification formality usually.