scorpioncapital

It's a good argument. If not taxing dividends one corporation receives from another is standard policy, why is taxing dividends a corporation pays out to an individual taxpayer any different? After all, this is what Buffett argued in his op-ed, that he should be taxed more on the dividends he receives. But then, why not tax intra-corporate dividends too?

Another really good one, I'd say not very far behind IB is https://www.virtualbrokers.com/default.aspx

Interactive Brokers - unbeatable.

I wired funds to IB and it took exactly 2 hours to arrive at IB and that's from Canada to the US.

It's not so simple. The rich don't pay payroll taxes because they created their own social security. If you didn't create that security, why is it not fair to pay a tax that will give you something? Statistics show most people die with zero or negative net worth. Likewise, the rich pay an estate tax, with state taxes some estimates show that some mega-rich in some states would have to pay upward of 80% in taxes on their total wealth, whether upfront or on the backend. Of course, there are foundations, etc.. but that is giving away the money so doesn't count. If the US has a cash-flow issue I do agree to rebalance some taxes to the present but that would require reducing long term wealth taxes.

Actually some studies show that short sale bans can be effective during panics, I am for them! http://69.175.2.130/~finman/Publications/JAF/2011/Nguyen.pdf

I found the lecture interesting, Scholes is an academic, I think in that realm he has some valid ideas regarding intermediation, attractors, and setpoints. Of course, it's just scientific talk to explain simple concepts like "new normal" and how the future is hard to know. I found it interesting though that he thinks alpha is a zero sum game, like beta, so many hedge funds claim to "seek alpha" and his message is that in the aggregate this is misfounded. One should seek gains in intermediation (which by the way is what LUK does as a liquidity umbrella for illiquid stakes + a tax benefit).

and same for governments :)

By this definition, bankruptcy doesn't exist for anything, individuals, corporations or governments. I can never be bankrupt because I can renegotiate my loan terms to 50 years instead of say 5 or negotiate not to pay any of my debts as I don't have the money.

"Thus, if all sovereign long bonds are "junk", then ALL long debt is "junk" as well" A company can set the interest rate it pays to investors to compensate them for the loss of purchasing power, the market can demand only short-term loans or higher interest rates - and this will work fine because companies are not bankrupt, they have positive equity. The US government (see the report on another link on this site) is bankrupt, it has a substantially negative net worth and cash-flow, thus it cannot contract to pay substantially higher interest rates to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of the currency. As a result, sovereign debt is worth much LESS than private debt.

But credit risk is intimately intertwined with inflation. The US should be far lower than AAA in real terms and that's how I think credit ratings should be imparted to all countries - who is devaluing more or less. The rating should be a measure of rate of devaluation. So for example very few deserve close to triple A, maybe Japan. Since government has the ability to print money, very few governments have long term credit worth anything. Companies have credit in so far as they can pay an interest rate to keep up with inflation, but their hands are tied as they can't print money.

Actually I never understood the rating system because it doesn't take inflation into account. All long term sovereign debt should be rated junk status. All short term debt can most certainly be rated AAA. So there is just a gradient between AAA (short term) and C or lower (long term). This S&P downgrade is for long term bonds or a blended average?

"On the other hand, when you add in the devaluation of the dollar the S&P500 is actually down to the level of august 2010" It's down to the level of 13 years ago, but the US dollar was stronger then, so take something like the CDN dollar and it's down to the level of something like 15 years ago.

Great article, I really admire what people like Block are doing in the public markets! As an aside: "An on-the-ground investigation in China by The Globe and Mail found discrepancies in Sino-Forests’ public statements regarding its timber holdings. A key Sino-Forest partner in Yunnan Province as well as Chinese forestry officials said the company controls far less timber than it has claimed"

Congress failed to pass TARP on first pass, stock market goes down 2000 points or so. Congress obviously passes it after that, and a year or two later the stock market is back where it was. Same possibility with the debt vote - only opportunity due to volatility.

Logic is always more important than checklists and formulas. The reason people promote formulas and systems is because most people don't have logic. Which begs the question , why play when you don't know what you're doing? This leads to the conclusion that most players are beginners. At this level, systems are actually beneficial because they have a slight advantage. The system to invest in index funds produces an average result - it's the system to try for average, not the average itself however that is the key point here. At the root of systems is consistency, people have a hard time being consistent. So have a system or use logic, but be consistent, anything in-between is sloppy thinking :)

Movie ticket - ~$10 Popcorn and drink - ~$5 -- = 50%, I don't think you need any outside argument to see it isn't an insiginificant part of the ticket price. Perhaps he is referring to it as a proportion of disposable entertainment money?

The top chief of Leucadia Energy also believes shale gas production economics are over-blown and believes natural gas could be in the $6-$7/mmbtu range over time.

- Usually companies have a different set of financial statements for tax reporting purposes. These statements are a hybrid between the cash-flow and earnings statements. However, even the government recognizes the non-cash nature of certain expenses such as depreciation. - You can sometimes work backwards from the actual corporate tax paid and the posted marginal tax rates to deduce approximately what the company is claiming for net taxable income. This is actually a useful audit technique to see discrepancies between reported earnings and actual earnings. - The only advantage I see with conglomerates with respect to tax is the ability to offset gains in one business with losses in another instead of having to wait for profits in the losing business to recover.

< 0 - as usual.

This article made me laugh, here's a company and stock that have made many a shareholder rich beyond their wildest dreams over the years and they have a problem with their jets :)

There are no small companies with a durable competitive advantage or wide moat. Small companies either don't have these traits or they are developing them. If they had them, they wouldn't be small. A more interesting question is what are the signs of a developing advantage.

"However, underneath the quiet calm, interest rates will still be 0, employment will be less than inspiring, and house prices will continue a downward trend. Growth in China will encounter larger problems related to reduced ROI from capital investments and higher inflation." You can't go wrong predicting the present :)

Is there any professional study in sports or hockey showing a home-game effect, that is a psychological advantage to the home team? Similar to the home-bias in investing?

excuse the pun, but some are missing the sino-forest for the trees here. You can't do business with crooked managements, or ethically borderline. Even if the minor allegations are true about the decisions these people made, I would consider not touching it, despite cheapness because the final outcome , whether now or years from now, can't possibly lead to superior investment returns.