NnnnotSoSmart

Taking his cues from Trump, Carney's renovating the "Canadian Whitehouse". Canada’s Most Famous Fixer-Upper—the Prime Minister’s Home—Is Getting a Makeover https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/canadas-most-famous-fixer-upperthe-prime-ministers-homeis-getting-a-makeover-1a5b2b6d?st=85eDLt&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Wine Review: Eh? Vineyards 2023 Canadian Cabernet Sauvignon – “Maple Leaf Reserve” - This bold Canadian Cabernet Sauvignon from the frozen vineyards of Ontario (or perhaps that one plucky plot in British Columbia that pretends it’s Napa) pours a deep, almost apologetic ruby into the glass, the color of a Mountie’s jacket after a long winter of regrettable decisions. On the nose, it leaps forward with restrained enthusiasm, offering notes of blackcurrant, vanilla, and a distinct whiff of duty-free regret.On the palate, the wine delivers a medium-plus body that’s surprisingly assertive for something that probably spent its formative years under three feet of snow. The fruit is there—ripe plum and cherry—but quickly yields to the unmistakable terroir of the Great White North. I detected clear echoes of poutine gravy (that salty, beefy umami that clings like snow to a parka), followed by a mid-palate surge of maple-glazed bacon that somehow pairs with the subtle char of a perfectly scorched Nanaimo bar crust. The tannins are firm yet polite, much like a Canadian apology delivered after accidentally bumping into you on the sidewalk.What truly elevates this Cabernet, however, is the haunting finish. Just when you think it’s a straightforward New World red, it reveals a wild, gamey undertone that can only be described as moose droppings—earthy, slightly musky, with a lingering essence of “I just trekked through the boreal forest and this is what my boots tasted like.” It’s as if the grapes were gently misted with the essence of a majestic woodland creature that wandered too close to the fermentation tanks after a night of questionable lichen-based decisions. Overall, this is a wine of surprising depth, comic overtones and humorous in its presumptions, scoring a solid 87 points. Perfect for pairing with your next hockey riot or a quiet evening questioning your life choices while eating Kraft Dinner by candlelight. Grok is amazing.

Southern Canada has some nice farmland we might need if things get warm and dry down here. I'm sure Trump and Carney are working on it. If Carney ever wants to return to Goldman Sachs, he's gonna have to compromise.

Does anyone in their right think the Parisians are going to stop drinking? Good luck with that. Paris restricts alcohol consumption and sales as Europe's heatwave shifts east French authorities have announced public alcohol consumption and sales bans in Paris, in a bid to ease pressure on the capital's hospitals during the heatwave. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0pdq89zno

Planetary Intelligence: AI Leaves the Internet, Moves Into Space, Earth Gets a Nervous System This episode is about the collision of Earth intelligence, orbital compute,

OK, so humans can ultimately live on Mars, but they can't live on an earth that is 5-10 deg C warmer? Me thinks you're underestimating humans. But you're right, the robots would likely help us survive...if they chose to keep us around. Grok: An Earth that is 10∘C (18∘F) hotter than pre-industrial levels represents an extreme climate shift, akin to the Early Eocene period 50 million years ago. At this temperature, the equatorial and tropical zones would experience frequent, lethal "wet-bulb" temperatures (where heat and humidity make it physically impossible for the human body to cool itself through sweat), rendering the mid-latitudes largely uninhabitable for unprotected mammals. Furthermore, the complete melting of global ice sheets would raise sea levels by over 200 feet, entirely reshaping the continents. For humans to survive in significant numbers, civilization would have to structurally adapt. Here are three realistic scientific scenarios for how humanity could live on such an Earth: Scenario 1: The Polar Exodus (The Circumpolar Civilization) In this scenario, humanity undergoes a massive geographical migration, abandoning the tropics, subtropics, and traditional mid-latitudes (like the US, Southern Europe, and Central China) to aggregate entirely around the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The Environment: The poles, once icy wastes, transform into the planet's new temperate zones, with average annual temperatures resembling modern-day France or New England (10∘C to 15∘C). The Arctic Ocean becomes a ice-free, bustling Mediterranean-like sea. Human Life: Humanity builds high-density, highly urbanized megacities across northern Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, Greenland, and the newly exposed bedrock of Antarctica. Agriculture & Economy: Because standard topsoil takes millennia to form, agriculture relies heavily on indoor vertical farming and massive hydroponic facilities. Outdoor farming is limited to specialized, fast-growing crops that can survive the intense, 24-hour sunlight of polar summers. The global economy centers around maritime trade across the open Arctic and the extraction of resources long buried under ice sheets. Scenario 2: The Subterranean & Nocturnal Shift (The Sub-Surface Niches) In regions closer to the equator where geopolitical or structural reasons prevent migration, humans adapt by moving underground, shifting the entire rhythm of human life away from the blisteringly hot surface. The Environment: Surface temperatures regularly exceed 50∘C (122∘F), with hyper-humid coastal zones triggering fatal wet-bulb events during the day. The surface becomes a hostile desert or an ultra-dense, chaotic jungle populated only by specialized, heat-tolerant reptiles, insects, and flora. Human Life: Civilizations carve out massive, interconnected underground subterranean cities, leveraging the earth's natural thermal insulation to maintain manageable baseload temperatures. Surface travel, heavy industry, and automated maintenance are conducted almost exclusively at night, when temperatures drop to survivable—though still oppressive—levels. Infrastructure: Humans become an indoor, technologically insulated species. Power is generated heavily via surface solar arrays (which thrive in cloudless desert belts) and routed downward to drive massive cooling, water-desalination, and air-filtration networks. Scenario 3: The Automated "Ecomodernist" Enclaves (The Controlled Biospheres) Rather than moving underground or migrating to the poles, humanity uses hyper-advanced engineering to isolate itself from the environment, constructing closed-loop, climate-controlled hyper-cities. The Environment: The planet's climate is unstable, characterized by hyper-canes (extreme category-5+ hurricanes fueled by ultra-warm oceans), massive dust storms, and unpredictable weather systems that destroy traditional infrastructure. Human Life: Humans live inside heavily fortified, dome-covered megastructures or sealed architectural enclaves. These cities operate like permanent space colonies on Earth, dynamically regulating internal temperature, humidity, and atmospheric composition. The Technological Lifecycle: Human survival depends entirely on automated AI systems, advanced robotics, and nuclear or fusion power to maintain the colossal energy grids required for life support. Raw materials are gathered from the harsh outside world via automated drone fleets, and food production is entirely synthesized in industrial lab facilities (cellular agriculture, bioreactors, and synthetic protein generation), severing humanity's reliance on the outdoor biosphere.

Grantham is certainly a nut job. His crazy and glaringly unscientific obsession with "climate change" is evidence of it. A Grantham quote from an interview in 2022: "It strikes me as utterly trivial and only producible by economists. [...] The guy who got the Nobel Prize for it [William Nordhaus], for his work on climate change — actually he spelled it out. He said, 'Even if there was 10 degrees centigrade, it would only cost something in the range of 10 percent of GDP.' To which I say, 'Dudes, we will be long gone as a species at 10 degrees centigrade.' It is quite obvious at 1.1 [°C] that we are already having trouble. At 2, we will be struggling and societies will fail here, there, and everywhere. At 3, in a sense, forget about it [...] At 10 degrees . . . You cannot find a serious climate scientist who would bet that society, as we know it on a global basis, will still be around at 5 degrees centigrade. I have met a lot of them, and I ask them this question. Not one thinks we have any material chance of a stable society at 5 degrees centigrade." https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jeremy-grantham/ In a 2012 Nature commentary, he urged climate scientists: "Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested if necessary. This is not only the crisis of your lives — it is also the crisis of our species' existence." He argued understatement is more dangerous than overstatement for this issue. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/11/financier-jeremy-granthams-be-brave-advice-to-climate-scientists/

Added to my position yesterday. Don't be too hard on me. Remember I'm...

The private placement was done at $351.8 per Class A and $348.2 per Class C share. This increases BRK's GOOG(L) position by 50% above the latest 3/31/26 13F.. During April: GOOGL traded at prices ranging from $291-348/share. GOOG traded at prices ranging from $290-340/share. Those prices are less than what BRK paid in the private placement. The probability that they picked up additional GOOG(L) shares in the open market during April is greater than zero. We'll see... .

Saaspocalypse? Or just software back to market multiples? Slide below. Starting at 10:52 Gerstner: Most of these software names are trading at a higher multiple than NVDA. NVDA is trading at 13 times earnings for a company that is growing at 70%, for the thing that is the most essential thing to AI. And yet arguably AI challenged software is at twice the multiple.

There went the money for next year's Australia/New Zealand cruise...

No doubt. MU is cheaper than NVDA. I own both. NVDA arguably has a stronger moat than MU. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone (NVDA?) develop a HBM "work around" where suddenly memory needs are dramatically reduced. Folks are working on it. GPUs and CPUs will remain core to the AI story and NVDA will continue to dominate that space.

Hope you're right. Can't stop my trigger finger. Fortunately, running out of cash. Can't buy much more.

I need help..

Glutton for punishment... May-27-2026 SEP-IRA ***5040 YOU BOUGHT NVIDIA CORPORATION COM (NVDA) (Cash) Date May-27-2026 Symbol NVDA Symbol description NVIDIA CORPORATION COM Type Cash Shares +709.000 Price $211.00 Amount -$149,599.00 Settlement date May-28-2026 -$149,599.00

May-22-2026 SEP-IRA ***5040 YOU BOUGHT NVIDIA CORPORATION COM (NVDA) (Cash) -$301,616.10 Date May-22-2026 Symbol NVDA Symbol description NVIDIA CORPORATION COM Type Cash Shares +1,390.000 Price $216.99 Amount -$301,616.10 Settlement date May-26-2026 May-22-2026

Software stocks value traps? AI Disruption: Moats and Value Traps Kai Wu May 2026 In AI Adopters: Beneficiaries of the Boom (Jan 2026), we showed that corporate AI adoption is accelerating as firms begin realizing tangible returns on their AI investments. As early adopters ourselves, we remain bullish on this trend and the positioning of these AI-enabled firms. But disruption creates both winners and losers. The flipside of AI adoption is that many incumbents are now selling off due to fears that AI will disrupt their business models. The AI reaper has come for wealth advisors, consultants, and even trucking firms. However, nowhere has the damage been as severe and widespread as in software stocks. Software development is by far the most advanced AI use case today, powered by coding agents like Claude Code and Codex. In a world where software costs nearly zero to build, the market seems to believe that software firms no longer have moats. Over the past several months, software stocks have sold off, despite the broader market continuing to rally. https://www.sparklinecapital.com/post/ai-disruption?utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_C0cyv7AnoAxhy0d1VSfvHZ392thJ1XmZvM37u6rxM3CX-R9NQLUT38zLsdoNBqLbA81i2cfiGe3uhLq-7ZGzmuYCe6Q&_hsmi=419705527&utm_content=419705527&utm_source=hs_email

Thanks. Trying to get my head around why Fairfax would continue to own it. I prompted Grok to give me an update on what the current narrative is on Blackberry and why the stock has risen recently. For what it's worth: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BlackBerry (BB) stock rose sharply on May 21, 2026, closing up about 7.26% to $6.65. This marks continued momentum in 2026, with the stock up significantly year-to-date and hitting multi-year highs. Main Reasons for the Recent Rise BlackBerry has successfully transitioned from its old smartphone business to software-focused operations, centered on: QNX (embedded software for automotive, robotics, and industrial — especially driver assistance and "physical AI") Cybersecurity/Secure Communications (including tools for government and enterprises) Key recent drivers: Strong Q4 FY2026 Earnings (reported April 9, 2026): Revenue hit $156M (10%+ YoY growth, beating estimates), driven by record QNX revenue ($78.7M, +20% YoY) and a large royalty backlog (~$950M). This sparked a big initial pop and sustained buying. Ongoing QNX Momentum: Used in over 275 million vehicles. Partnerships (e.g., expanded with Nvidia for robotics/AI). Positive interviews and showcases highlighting growth in automotive and physical AI. FedRAMP Class D (High) Re-Certification (announced around May 20, 2026): This is a major U.S. government cloud security milestone, boosting credibility for mission-critical communications and potentially opening more federal contracts. Share Buybacks: The company renewed/expanded its Normal Course Issuer Bid (NCIB) program, signaling confidence that shares are undervalued. They’ve been actively repurchasing shares. Broader Sentiment: High options activity (often bullish calls), short covering from earlier meme-stock days, and analyst/investor optimism around the software turnaround. Current Context BB is trading near its 52-week high. Analysts generally rate it a Hold with targets around $4–$5 (some higher recently), but the market has been pricing in stronger growth. Next earnings (Q1 FY2027) expected around late June 2026. Bottom line: The rise reflects real business progress in QNX/cybersecurity, government wins, and capital return — not just hype. However, it remains a volatile stock tied to execution in competitive markets (auto software, cybersecurity). Always do your own research or consult an advisor, as stock prices can move quickly on news and sentiment.

Anyone know Fairfax's average cost basis on BlackBerry?

Probably the size the AAPL position grew to, and the valuation. And yet, he's been adding to GOOGL? From the horse's mouth in February: QUICK: You’ve sold a lot of stock that’s done very well for you, Apple— BUFFETT: Well, I sold it too soon, but I bought it even sooner. So, it worked out. Yeah, I think we’ve made over $100 billion in that pretax. QUICK: But you’re regretting it? You say you sold it too soon? BUFFETT: No, no, I don’t have any ability to predict what stocks will do next week or next month and I will buy them if they’re cheap. I’ll buy a whole lot of them if they’re cheap and I think I really understand the business, and Apple is still our largest single investment. QUICK: And you like it that way? BUFFETT: Yeah, well, if I didn’t like it, I could sell it. Yeah, I can, I think it’s a remark -- it’s better than any business we own outright. Now, we own a railroad that’s worth more money than our Apple position, for example, they’re both looked at the same way. I mean, they’re both, they’re both businesses. I expect the, I think it’s more predictable in a certain sense, that the railroad will be around 50 or 100 years from now, but it doesn’t earn the rate remotely on capital than Apple does. I mean, Apple is a business that you’ve got one, probably and your kids have got them, and— QUICK: Not one, we’ve got like 20 of them. BUFFET: Yeah, devices. Actually, the Bell Telephone Company was that way at one point, but they were regulated. QUICK: Well, do you worry about regulation coming for some of these big tech companies, in particular Apple? BUFFETT: I think the consumers are in love with them too much. I don’t, I don’t think Washington will do anything that really destroys something that every one of their voters likes and they’re using themselves. I mean, it’s a remarkable product that way. Just think of something as useful as the Apple is. I mean, it’s, Tim Cook has done better with the hand than Steve Jobs. He couldn’t have done what Steve Jobs did, but Steve Jobs handed him a hand that Steve would not have done as well. Steve picked him. I mean, when you get right down to it, and Tim was a fantastic manager, and he’s a good guy, and somehow he gets along with everybody in the world, which is, you know, that’s, that’s a technique I wouldn’t have for example. Certainly my partner, Charlie Munger, wouldn’t have had it, but I’m very happy to have it be our largest position. I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined. QUICK: Okay, that makes sense. BUFFETT: Although at a price I was, and they could— QUICK: Right. Hold it up— BUFFETT: It’s not impossible that Apple would get to a price, we would buy a lot of it, but not in this market. I mean, it just isn’t going to happen in this market. QUICK: How much would stocks have to come down for you to think that this is really attractive, if it’s— BUFFETT: Well it depends on the stock. Some stocks now, generally speaking, they move together to quite a degree, but, but I don’t think I know what the market’s going to do. I do think I’ve got a reasonable idea of what a business is worth. I have no idea what the stock market’s going to do, and I don’t think anybody else does either. QUICK: You don’t necessarily follow tech companies and Apple, people look at as a tech company, but you always looked at as a consumer company. BUFFET: It’s a consumer. QUICK: Yeah. BUFFETT: Company. QUICK: So what do you do about all of these tech stocks and the AI trends that are there? Do you try and follow any of that? Do you get involved in any of those industries? BUFFETT: Well I don’t because A, I wouldn’t be any good at it, and besides, I’m so late to the game. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/cnbc-exclusive-transcript-berkshire-hathaway-chairman-warren-buffett-speaks-with-cnbcs-becky-quick-on-squawk-box-today.html And yet they're buying GOOGL in Q1? Watch what he does, not what he says.

A large position in GOOGL might move the needle some. BRK tripled their GOOGL(+GOOG) position-in Q1...now ~ 7% of US equity portfolio. If there is any significant GOOGL drawdown wouldn't be surprised to see them (Buffett, Abel, Ted) add to the position.

Correct. Original paper was 1995.

Was reminded of Jeremy Siegel's 1998 "The Nifty-Fifty Revisited" paper (copy attached) where he challenged the market consensus view that the premier growth stocks of the early 1970s had been driven to completely unwarranted, bubble-induced valuations. Tracking the performance of these 50 institutional favorites from their December 1972 market peak through August 1998 (26+ years), Siegel suggested that a diversified portfolio of these stocks actually matched or slightly exceeded the long-term returns of the broader S&P 500. Ultimately, he concluded that while investors must avoid overpaying for individual "bad apples" (hard to do), a premium valuation (such as a 40+ P/E ratio) is structurally justified for a rare breed of elite, dominant companies capable of sustaining double-digit earnings growth over multiple decades. Note that in Siegel's table below, a number of the tech names of the day (IBM, Xerox, Kodak, Burroughs, Polaroid, etc) had some of the worst performances after the 1972 peak, whereas consumer product and pharmaceutical stocks reside at the top of the list. Is this time different? Probably. P.S. There's a high probability I'll be dead in 27 years. I can't afford to wait that long! . 577058914-valuing-growth-stocks-revisiting-the-nifty-fifty.pdf

The First Major-Exchange Compute Futures "To finish the arc oil walked in the 1980s and natural gas in the 1990s, compute had to find a home at a major regulated derivatives exchange. Today it does."

Might be an interesting read. Haven't read it yet. How did one family build Fidelity into one of the most powerful forces in American investing, and what allowed it to endure across three generations? In the latest episode of A Book with Legs, Smead Capital Management CEO and Portfolio Manager Cole Smead and Analyst Will Keenan sit down with journalist and author Justin Baer to discuss his book, titled "House of Fidelity: The Rise of the Johnson Dynasty and the Company That Changed American Investing." Cole and Will explore the 80-year rise of Fidelity with Justin, tracing three generations of the Johnson family and the various investing styles of Fidelity leadership throughout the years. They also discuss the closed-door battles that shaped the firm's direction, the rise and legacy of Peter Lynch, and what this story tells us about active management businesses that last. Justin Baer is an award-winning journalist and an editor for The Wall Street Journal. In a career that includes stints at the Financial Times and Bloomberg News, he has covered almost every significant financial event over the past two decades, including the dot-com bubble, the 2008 financial crisis and the economic fallout from the pandemic. Along the way, Baer has chronicled the ups and downs of such major institutions as Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Purchase “House of Fidelity: The Rise of the Johnson Dynasty and the Company That Changed American Investing” here