Jump to content

scorpioncapital

Member
  • Posts

    2,780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by scorpioncapital

  1. so if you can earn more on cash there is less incentive to invest or do business - therefore just sit on cash. If you have none, I presume they want to coax more people into the labour force.

     

    When spending is reduced I presume this is for non-essentials? I mean, I do understand all the arguments why recessions are bad - after all - how precise can they be?  Do you want to reduce the wealth to the point that people can't pay rent or eat, or run out of money? Or do you want to reduce inflation temporarily, hopefully most? people can get by during this period on the essentials. I have always been relatively price conscious, perhaps thrifty but is the idea that most people are not. Most people just spend too much and the Fed is now going to try to take that punchbowl away?

  2. I don't understand how hammering the stock market reduces inflation. Do people actually spend a ton of their capital if the stock goes up a few percent short-term or even medium term? Or do people invest for many years, for retirement? Are the aggregate withdrawals when the market goes up the cause of significant inflation?

  3. I don't understand the quote that if the oil price fell and he made a fair offer. Why would he not make a fair offer now? Would the company sell at 80 if the oil price fell and the stock was at 50? But today oil price is high the stock is at 70 and they would not sell at 80? So they are saying in a point of economic weakness they would sell lower than now. Sounds like buy high, sell low! In a cyclical stock why would it matter selling the company at differing prices based on the oil price?

     

     

  4.  

    I have read that Fukushima was not such a bad disaster. I mean a few people died just being evacuated.

    And Wikipedia writes, "

    1 confirmed cancer death attributed to radiation exposure by the government for the purpose of compensation"

    And that was due to a pretty rare tsunami! These new reactors are nothing like the stereotype we have of Chernobyl.

    It is highly unlikely to have major safety issues so the German position is not rational.

  5. 16 hours ago, KPO said:

    Perusing some old filings and thinking about the CVX position that Berkshire has somewhat quietly built the last few years, which is 2X the OXY position, has me wondering if being the largest shareholder in a combined CVX/OXY is the end game. The Permian synergies and long term strategic value of controlling the largest domestic block of oil & natural gas would be an interesting final move for Buffett. 
     

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773910/000095015719000475/form425.htm

     

    https://chevroncorp.gcs-web.com/static-files/728b8ce6-1c60-4643-9e58-2d64f28e134e
     

     

     

    I see this too. Remember that Chevron wanted to buy Anadarko but lost out to Occidental. It woud be an interesting twist of fate that now they get it rolled up in Oxy if that were to happen. Seems like Berkshire becomes like the matchmaker and could own a very nice stable share in a diversified energy conglomerate at no doubt a very lucrative cost basis.

     

  6. I'm surprised nobody mentioned the tailwind of the country's system they are in. I remember Buffett said if he was born in something like Siberia there would be no chance anything would work out. Or what if you put it in a stock market in  country where it got expropriated or the stock market shut down?

    I wonder if the great investing nations will have the same tailwind going forward. That may be a different experience for millenial generation.

  7. If so, how did you do it? I see that if you withdraw funds from margin you risk a margin call while waiting for your investments to 'mature'. Could take years.

    Or do you get dividends enough to cover living costs? 

    Do you have a part-time gig that tops it up while waiting for investments to mature?

    Do you go for some bold risk taking and make a fortune on some security each year?

    Seems to me if you make some mistakes or the equity does not compound fast enough your withdrawal rate has to be very small in the first decade or two of this activity?

     

  8. I think he is trying to run a balanced ship. Seems Apple is his go-to tech part of his portfolio so he's not gonna add a Google on a dip, unless it was a huge dip maybe. So he nibbles on that. He added to energy to round out the commodity hedge against infation/stagflation. Just seems to me Berkshire is a very balanced ship that mimics in some ways the SP500 but with slightly more energy exposure now.

     

  9. Is it possible to build value in commodity stocks or do they always get hit back down either from the commodity price dropping or payment of dividends? I've noticed in some commodity businesses either value builds up very slowly or it never builds up. It's like  bank account but with a leaky hole so that the average balance is always flat or declining.

  10. Amazing, although it seems he is buying very slowly despite it dipping below 60 on volatility. Truly wonder if he will go for the whole thing or if he's waiting for some macroeconomic signals.

  11. We seem to live in a world of more volatile currencies. 

    This leads many companies I see today to report on 'net basis' and 'constant currency' basis.

    I read the wikipedia, etc..but am confused. Is this the next shoe to drop like SBC not being an expense?

     

    If a company translates net profit using non-market foreign exchange rate is it real? It seems similar to accumulated comprehensive income. Insurance companies dump unrealized gains/losses here. 

     

    Now with companies if they operate in foreign currency, is that currency sitting in that foreign currency and so will reverse if the base currency (say USD) goes back down?

    Until that time - IF that ever happens (might take years or decades right?) should we assume the net real reported growth rate? 

     

    In other words, currency impacts, unhedged, should be part of the business management's performance right?

    If they had hedged their exposure they'd report better results.  Strangely I have seen some US companies report higher reported growth than constant currency growth and vice versa. It seems some companies benefit from a weaker US dollar and others from a stronger one.

     

    So if a company has say 5% growth rate in real time terms and 10% in Constant currency, what is the true picture of the growth rate? 

     

    How would you value the company growth rates given currency issues? Ignore it or assume it is a real hit for valuation growth rate for a sequence of years in your DCF calculations?

     

     

  12. Love the point about the lesson. Some are slower or faster to learn it, but when you learn it on your own skin, it is there for good. But even in a failure we have to ask what made us do it or stay with it. Usually the reason is not half bad, but there is probably a better way to fulfill that need.

     

    Cheers!

     

×
×
  • Create New...