scorpioncapital

ah ok, i was not talking about the US. in other countries you aren't allowed to kick someone out except if you sell the property or do some extensive renovation or for family members to move in. Since that is quite rare rents are capped below or at inflation rate, although there are many landlord scams now where they try to evict for false reasons , re-rent at 100-200% price increase, and the tenant is too scared or unknowledgeable to ever go back and investigate who actually moved in.

"Firstly, companies/landlords took the piss with price increases during the COVID period taking advantage of the extra spending power consumers had with all the COVID handouts and their excess savings and the strong economy and using the supply chain issues and material cost inflation as an excuse. Those price increases are unlikely to stick." What landlords? it was and is actually illegal in most developed countries to increase rates even at the rate of inflation nowadays. mandated below inflation rate rises. sure, you can have deflation but only because of totalitarian boot to the head of any economy.

we need to confiscate 20% of all billionaire wealth off the top.

anything with a p/fcf over 40 for sure.

I think Berkshire/Buffett is more comfortable in consumer franchises, industrials, financials/insurance. Apple is sort of cross of tech/software & consumer franchise. I think he said once that everything is tech. That's not really a business, that's just an input to everything. Tech has never been a business. What exactly is tech? Everything is tech! Perhaps better to think in terms of end-markets? and applications?

I'm a bit confused what is defined as the invested capital. Is it the annual capex over many years, summed together, or is it the actual historical capital on the equity side (+ debt) of the balance sheet? I can see a case where both are important to invested capital relative to revenues or earnings. One is somewhat static, except for retained earnings, the other is a regular annual expense.

Because anarcho-capitalism worked everywhere it was tried? What are the super wealthy anarcho-capitalist nations, by this we mean something with zero welfare state? How does that work in Argentina where 40% are well below poverty line? Is it kinda like they die out and the averages go up? what i mean is i doubt this guy's ideas will turn things around.

Lol, this smooth talking hypocrite is saying to deleverage now. You got to do these things before the sh*t hits the fan. Otherwise you are not a great investor!! Better yet, like Munger says, don't get into situations of reckless debt at all.

You can be a scumbag and a genius at the same time. I'm not sure it is a great use of the talent though and society should probably penalize such uses of 'genius'. After all using genius for bad things does not make the world a better place. Or maybe he can provide restitution, but how?

I think what they were saying is that lack of competition - or strong mono or duopolies protect his ability to earn an economic rent without much headache or risks of high capital investment or expenses. For example, Amazon has over 1 million employees. I'm actually surprised they do so well given that any minor increase in wages would skyrocket their expenses. If they cannot pass it on to customers they would lose volume. Plus you got to pay health insurance, various babysitting tasks etc.. Recently the NDP of BC Canada made very strict bans on Airbnb type housing and the justification was something like, go find another way to get rich or make money. Governments don't like people making tons of money but do not solve the problems by regulation. Usually they need more supply. That's one case. Competition for sure helps. Higher prices leads to more construction for example. That's free market. But then they said they protect the hotel industry. Either way it seems an eternal struggle between protecting party A vs B, or completely monopolizing some area that if was open to competition would result in lower profits for the previous monopolist but spread out among more players and lower prices to consumers. That's the theory. Then there is the argument of inefficiency. I am totally puzzled by it. In theory, competition could be inefficient and even state-run or almost monopolized scale players more efficient. Is the concept of competition somehow defective?? To give credit to BRK they are also in high capex businesses like energy, utilities, railroads. Here they have some monopolies with restricted profits, but steady and high investment needs. With float at 0% they can still earn good leveraged money even at a capped 10% return that's guaranteed. I think the article talks about only those industries that *could* have competition but for some reason the government allowed excessive consolidation and pricing power.

Ok, I didn't think about that delay if it has huge consequences. Perhaps you can link it with the funds that outperform to see who has the least turnover and assume there is more than average of 90 days continuity between reports? One fund was just a collection of indexes. I guess for 5 years they just shifted around the index distribution and name, currency used and perhaps used leverage (unknown). But if you assume leverage has a maximum you could back engineer the non-margined return. Not sure if funds can get more than 2-3:1 leverage or not.

So you take a database of all funds or insiders (includes pensions, individuals as insiders, etc..) from a public database (reporting requirements differ by country but there is some minimum to report). You find the funds with the top returns above sp500 over 5 years (you can exclude outliers if you want), with some criteria. E.g. 3 out of 5 outperformance years, over 10 securities held) Say this returns 300 funds. You then dig into their holdings and find which securities had the top mentions across all of them and categorize by market cap size. Pick top 5 from each size class and buy them (say 50 stocks if you split it into 5 size categories). Rebalance monthly or quarterly. For me the backward looking aspect is the big issue. But I can't say why or why not it wouldn't work. Since you are always coat-tailing on the ones that come to the top. After all, all index funds operate this way. Sp500 removes those who fall out, and adds those which have risen to the top. That's why Buffett says it is so hard to beat sp500 because it is never too late to add winners and ditch losers.

Say you do a database study of global funds/insiders and what they hold each month, then choose 5-5-5-5 from each size category. Totally algorithmic. What are the pitfalls or pros of this method? So far this year such a strategy has outperformed sp500 by a huge margin. Furthermore, the study seems to show large cap and very tiny companies have had the best performance (the middle of the road the worst). Any thoughts? My initial reaction is that it is somewhat backward looking, or disguised beta as alpha. But I can't really criticize the results if they work. Thoughts?

I am not sure to disagree or agree. They seem to bring some valid points? https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/special-investigation-the-dirty-secret-behind-warren-buffetts-billions/

I am not sure I understand currency debasement. Wouldn't stocks go up and bonds go down? Is it possible for stocks to rise as rates rise?

Why do the government bureaucrats have to do all these supply and demand laws and actions? I mean, it sounds to me that by not allowing the free market to operate, there is not an incentive to bring supply and demand in balance. A lack of desire to invest and capital flight. If the government wants to raise taxes to 80% and build all the housing stock itself, why not? Well, that doesn't work so well either. There are lots of slum-type apartment complexes in former Soviet countries - they are falling apart, was constructed poorly, and while it houses lots of people it isn't exactly a good quality of life. "3.) Rents in Vancouver are controlled by the government. Same for older housing stock in Toronto. So in the same building two of the exact same units can rent for $1,500/month and $3,000/month. So no renters can afford to move today - your rent is going to double if you do. The rental market is effectively frozen. " Isn't this an arbitrage situation? Switch all the 1500/month rents to 3000/month and the investor/landlord doubles their money?

I'm confused. Are the former Communist Eastern European countries more capitalist than the Western European ones? For example, from what I understand the EU controls international elements of the bloc as well as cross-country policies. But does the EU have the right to control taxes on companies within a country? Or is that an OECD thing? In other words is it possible that some EU countries are very economically liberal compared to others? Well, the Eastern ones have other problems like a regressive tax system. (E.g. very low flat tax which benefits the rich or those with capital and very high wage taxes, say 30-40% plus the 10% flat tax which impedes capital formation if you don't already have it) PS. These bank windfall taxes make 100% sense to me and I'm all for it even as a capitalist. Think about it. The banks pay 0% interest. They don't want to pay 3 or 5%. The government is saying, unless you pay 3-5%, we will take that money as a tax and distribute it to people in lieu of getting that 3-5% on interest. How is it different than the outflow of capital from banks causing bank failures in USA because people took their money out to brokers or etfs that did pay 5%? Essentially it is the bank's own fault for not following with higher rates on cash. Now one can argue its not the best method. For example, not everyone has savings so it could just be a socialist redistribution grab but the banks could certainly up interest to avoid some of these taxes?

The criticism of Moodys can extend to the banks, to the very homeowners themselves I suppose. One can always say you shouldn't take free money if it can come back to haunt you. The question is if in the order of disreputable actors throughout the entire financial system there were more or less severe cases of fraud or ignorance..btw I think Moodys also paid some settlement?

I was thinking southern hemisphere, those countries said they're not aligned. I guess it would have to be a real chain reaction for neutral countries to be hit. But then I wonder if, like Covid, flights will be cancelled and you had to be out well before. The most eerie show I saw about how this could play out from 1984 - was https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ Everyone talks about world destroying nuclear war but it is possible to have a limited , tactical type nuclear engagement that would still be as severe as covid but not world destroying. The tactical nukes of today are actually as or more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.

is anyone worried about a nuclear war, followed by deflation, a rush to certain continents vs others, panic, and some companies doing well that sell radiation monitors, or even Amazon delivering essential goods via robots?

anyone locking in 2-5 years for higher yield in case short-term yields reverse in next 2 years? Or is the risk they go even higher?

Is operating margin also propping up fcf ratios? op margins are an indirect proxy for 'moat quality'. I've observed slow fcf growers with high margins and good moat tend to have higher p/e ratios but they will also compress, but perhaps less?

https://recision.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jens-parsson-dying-of-money-24.pdf Fascinating book. I would have never thought as a hardcore capitalist about the risks of and to democracy and change my view to actually desire higher capital and inheritance/wealth taxes. This guy was very persuasive. I started to see that while the world has many types of systems what protects gains in capitalism is some types of a fair, just and altruistic society, even if it is painful to the individual hyper-capitalist. The only criticism I have is that humans are not perfect and repeat errors and this works only for advanced developed economies that do not regress back to developing status. He also seems to acknowledge the errors and failures that led to inflationary disasters. He seems to balance theory and reality of human nature and is a pragmatist. Still, unless people get along and don't get ultra polarized, you will tend to get sub-optimal economics in any state or society.

I'm glad you mentioned Bruce Greenwald. I've watched his youtube interviews and he is quite astute. I remember him saying over and over - that advantages get competed away. He said this happened in agricultural stocks and now is happening in manufacturing stocks (the 'hard asset' stuff). He gives a warning that in the years and decades ahead it can happen to software stocks too but he still thinks this is a fruitful place to be so far. Another guy I like is Viktor Shvets at Macquire who believes the same thing from the angle of the marginal cost of capital approaching zero with technological advancement. I am not sure if or when we get to some pure communist phase but he says the banks are toast if there will be no cost to capital and a cbdc. I also like The Death of Money, a fascinating book I am sure Gates and Buffett have read as it talks of farmland as an inflation hedge and seems to mesh with Buffett's ideas on inflation. He even predicted UBI in 1973 but like Gates has said that we are not yet there, lots of work still to be done. The cost of capital being zero is probably premature but abundance or commoditization in some industries may make investing challenging.

just cut out the word 'value' and the key is to avoid traps , in all investing. The traps that I find most challenging are the slowly deflating kind. They waste your time and just show up as 'sub-benchmark' return over time...How to spot them? it's an art and a science. Don't forget the art part. That comes from synthesizing 1. past experiences 2. past patterns where you saw this before 3. thinking outside the box and 4. reverse engineering this and other situations. I can't say there is an algorithm but generally watch out for egregious management actions, the nature of a business (recently hard asset stocks tend to have done worse than asset-light or software/tech stocks, but this trend could continue indefinitely), and perhaps even sometimes just bad luck. You sometimes need scuttlebutt to know if a company is doing worse than another and why.