scorpioncapital

Does anyone know if the $587 monthly payment for Clayton homeowners represents just the house or both the land+house? If not the land, do these home owners have to buy the land and pay for a land mortgage?

It's most certainly the land, those houses will be demolished and new ones built. All these folks posting a decrepit picture and showing a large price tag maybe don't understand the game. Having said that, I don't think Canada is a desirable place to live, but for those who think it is, it's the land they're paying for.

I see both tickers traded today - NASDAQ:LSXMA NASDAQ:LSXMK

Just looking at the share prices of some banks and IBM (although BAC are held as warrants), as well as profits in industrials, I have a feeling Q4 could be an incredibly big quarter. If mark to market gains flow through the income statement it could even be a $10 billion quarter.

There is always us and them. Don't you find it a bit strange that there are only a few Western countries that have this operating structure? Try being non-Chinese in China, or Indian in Russia. North America is young, but I don't think around the world multiculturalism is going to be accepted in any large degree. Some even question that it works at all. What happened when Americans allowed military ships to sail in international water near American borders? Not much.. What happened when American ships tried to sail in 'international waters' near other countries, like China? Well, they just said we don't understand this concept of international waters :) Same with trade, immigration. It's not exactly a 1:1 exchange in both directions. I think that's what Trump was trying to rectify but personally I think it's the language barrier. Only English speaking countries really have these dynamics.

Don't know how conventional this is, but recently I've been ordering investments according to internal investments and deals made. If no deal or major investment is made, I order the operating business according to pricing power and growth in volumes. Lots of companies are making deals, especially big ones, so you can track what is the return on a few years of investment. This should be a leading indicator of returns over the mid-term. If investment of some sort, tangible or intangible, drives growth, than the quality and details of this investment is a variable you can use to position size according to your tastes.

You may just be talking about the 'delight your customers' idea. Very true. Also delight the investor - you. If you get turned on by the business and the management is having fun, that's a team you want to play on. My little measure is to look at a small action or acquisition a company makes. Once in a while I'll see a deal that makes me say, 'wow that's creative'. Or that is something of high quality, quite unique. You have to see many deals to get a feel for what is above average. Managements that do creative, superior things may be what turns you on. That often translates into a good result too.

Sounds like an argument for large caps vs smaller companies. But why large caps? I think because large caps represent some measure of success and stability - a minimum threshold. Maybe you give up some upside but you certainly cover your ass..ets. Also it isn't entirely clear that smaller outperforms bigger, perhaps very,very big but the range is wide and my experience is that a well timed large cap investment is no slouch relative to a smaller company which you don't know - ahead of time - will be the next gold mine or the next dud...I also notice many successful startups are going public as large caps and still are doing well.

Everything is cheaper in America, that is a big part of the problem up North. Also you can do more things without an crazy regulation - although there are many in the US they are still tame compared to Canada.

Initiated a test position in HXL yesterday. http://bulletin.incas.ro/files/mrazova_m__v5_iss_3_full.pdf

" collective mind" - scary concept, like the Borg in Star Trek :)

By trying to regulate a fair market price, I'm skeptical any government will not end up producing a very unfair market price because in a free market prices can drop off a cliff in some industries as innovation and demand /supply dictate. For example, look at the attempt to regulate Uber and Airbnb to maintain a fair market price when the natural price would be much lower without the meddling.

Float is a bit like crowd-funding even before this concept existed. Many small inflows of cash for premium or future benefit that add up to an interest free loan. It's a very communal concept :)

If he thinks underwriting profits are approaching break-even and cost of float is approaching zero to slightly positive then borrowing for a few years at a few % points above zero is the same thing but without having to take on any underwriting risk or do any business at all.

My best idea for 2017 is to bite my fingers and make no trades for the first 60-90 days of the year ;)

What can one expect from Socialist Canada? The crtc is about to rule that Internet is an 'essential service'. Like oxygen and water I suppose. As a consequence, the government is redistributing $500 million of taxpayer's hard earned money to provide Internet to the few rural customers that probably are rural because they don't want blazing Internet that much anyway :) This is part of the infrastructure spending... they have to come up with projects to use all this money they collected or will collect in taxes. Big brother knows best.

In this investment letter, the author argues that Hoover and Nixon are better comparisons to Trump than Reagan - http://www.myrmikan.com/pub/Myrmikan_Research_2016_11_25.pdf Also wouldn't tax decreases imply an increase in another invisible tax: inflation? After all, numbers must balance to some degree. If lower taxes occur for everyone, then inflation goes up hence the possible about face of some of these market prognosticators.

I've seen some stocks pay a very tiny dividend, the conspiracy theorist in me feels this piddling amount might be used to technically allow interest deduction. Even Berkshire could pay like 1 cent per year but I'm not sure how many other countries besides Canada have this system of equating 'profits' with 'dividends' and having to interpret/guess if a company might in the future pay a dividend. We must feed the paper shufflers and accountants or they will starve :)

Governments have no social or financial engineering agendas, just keep moving on :) I don't think any place in the world is a free market. That ship has sailed along time ago if it ever existed. Probably they are trying to promote resident ownership versus foreign ownership, to compensate for the foreigner tax. Also the loan is interest free only for 5 years after which it goes to market rate. It's not a particularly large amount after which it sits like a 1st or 2nd mortgage on the property.

Not any loan, generally it must earn investment income. So there is some debate as to whether holding Berkshire on margin in Canada would qualify as a margin expense deduction because Berkshire has never paid a dividend except once in the 1960s and doesn't seem that it will at this time.

I used to be concentrated but never making that mistake again! The only one I might consider is Berkshire. The problem is actually not so much the concentration as the risk that your choice is worse than you think. Of course as your skill level and though process improve as to stock selection and pricing, the less you can diversify. It's almost an axiom that this accelerated wisdom comes from a huge loss though. Without a big mistake, I've found few catalysts to actually "getting it". Right now I hold about 10-12 positions but Berkshire is the biggest one. As I learn more, I slowly rotate out of Berkshire and into these smaller holdings. I'm comfortable with 8-12 positions but not much less or much more. I also look for 1 or 2 arbitrage opportunities per year.

Concentration can also be vertical instead of horizontal. E.g. if you own 100% Berkshire, it may not be diversified in terms of stocks but it certainly is very diversified in terms of what you own and adding even more stocks may be quite unconcentrated. Another example might be something like the former TCI if you could know their plan. 1 stock and now you got like 20? stocks in your portfolio from the children that were spun-off.

Except for 1 small cap (700m), I'm 70% large cap and 30% mid-cap on the theory that larger equals strength and past success which lead to continued success and - depending on what you bought - less downside in a correction. That's just me. In a parallel universe, I can imagine decent portfolios of growing small caps or severe mispricing in smaller companies. Of course you have to keep your eye on the economics, asset quality, and future prospects, no matter what you own.

I sell stocks that have losses and add to stocks that have gains, pretty much indefinitely... but I will give it some time since a) I wouldn't own anything if I didn't like the business to a good degree and b) I bought at a price I thought was reasonable...so I'll wait 6 months to a year. If it drops more than 20%, I'll sell regardless of time but only because my portfolio requires less draw-down than others due to some leverage.

What is stopping governments from selling for cash and then turning around and restricting price gains in the face of inflation? Brookfield seems to operate in many developing nations but also in developed ones. Either way, I'm not sure it's much different than a leveraged fixed income portfolio held inside an insurer, but there at least there are no cranes, no construction, no overhead, and if run right no interest expense, just paper and brokerage account.