nodnub
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nodnub
-
-
Bloomberg has an article on the growing importance of the credit-card / miles portion of the major airlines' businesses -
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-31/airlines-make-more-money-selling-miles-than-seats
as an aside, I haven't paid cash for an airline ticket for myself or my family in several years. someone is paying, I guess it's the banks?
Wouldn't you say that that cost is borne by consumers on average?
Credit cards that earn miles or rewards have higher processing fees than plain credit cards. The increased cost is passed on as slightly higher prices for all consumers.
-
I wonder if it's related to the number of communication channels we now have open to us. For instance here are a few of the methods that friends and business partners might use to contact me:
personal email, work email, a LinkedIn message, Facebook message, WhatsApp message, postal mail, cell calls+voicemail, landline calls+voicemail, GMail chat, cellphone text message, et al.
The issue is that you often don't have time to respond to something immediately. And when you need to come back to it... can you remember which communication channel it was on? Then you spend ten minutes trying to find the damn thing to respond to it. Or you forget completely. Very inefficient. It makes a good argument for reducing the number of contact points. But your work may require you to use several of these channels, and your friend circle may require you to use a few others. And you have to juggle all these interruptions with getting actual work done. This is enough to swamp most people.
I remember 15 years ago, there were some 3rd party chat clients that could aggregate your chat account Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, MSN chat, all into a single app. That's what is missing now. A way to unify your communications all in one place (and I don't mean having 6 different apps on my phone).
-
"From Trump University to his litany of failed projects and developments, Donald Trump is infamous for the bait and switch, selling fantasies of luxury, then ensnaring buyers in schemes of wealth extraction. As president, Trump is making this an ethos of government, promising to help the disadvantaged, and using that mandate to slash benefits and funnel tax dollars to the wealthy and connected. The Trump image always has been and continues to be a con, and we, the American public, have been had." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/trumpcare_proves_that_trump_s_promise_to_take_care_of_rural_voters_was_always.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
FWIW has trump ever made a promise specifcally on FnF? I dont remember one.
That is a good use of FWIW. and evidence to date indicates that a Trump promise is actually not worth anything at all. :D
-
I've heard that these type of manipulative sales techniques are widely used across the entire funeral industry. There is a new exposé about it every couple of years in the media. But it's old news. Nothing seems to change.
Many people pre-pay for their own funeral services to avoid this issue... I found it interesting to read in the CBC news article that these pre-arrangements are still being circumvented by the sales team --guilting family members into more expensive services.
-
I have a relatively concentrated position (won't go into detail why). I was OK with holding it through the run-up given the fact that I thought there was a floor on the stock- If Mnuchin failed, we still had the courts. if the courts failed, we still had Mnuchin. Therefore, there was a margin of safety on the stock price. We don't have that anymore.
It's a difficult decision.
I understand your frustration with one court (Perry) being partially affirmed (arguably the part that impacts pref shares the least), but keep in mind that there are many cases still pending... Delaware, Sweeney, Collins, etc. With that said, I totally can understand why somebody would want to sell a portion of their holdings given the uncertainty. Markets, and people make up the markets, mostly hate uncertainty. I'm standing pat because I still really like the potential reward given the risk.
for me it's a bet on America.
Either you think someone --- a politician(s) or a judge -- will provide justice or you don't.
there is plenty of room for everyone to share in the outstanding work the employees of FNMA and FMCC have produced.
all that said, we're only a week removed from a couple setbacks so there's likely more shareholder turnover involved over the near term. after a major gap drawdown it takes time.
Judges and politicians often don't provide the justice we seek or think we deserve. Good luck to all!
of course. there is risk.
regarding politicians i go back to the roster: mnuchin, ross, Paulson/berkowitz, carson, mulvaney, Blackwell.
regarding judges, all it takes is one? (with the assumption that sessions wouldn't appeal).
In a situation like this, there can be many moving pieces that are not obvious to even the best informed researcher. You can attend court, read all the filings, have your side win the case and all the eventual appeals which can drag out for years, and still you can still get screwed on some technicality that was difficult or impossible to foresee.
-
It's strange because the requirements to start a hedge fund in Canada/US does not seem too strenuous, where the US is slightly easier because you do not have to be a qualified investment manager when your AUM is small and you only have a few number of investors.
This is from speaking to lawyers and reading source/reliable materials (from OSC, SEC, AIMA, etc.) because someday in the next two to five years (once I get my CIM or CFA), I would like to be running my own partnership.
With all this, the question still reverberates at the back of my head that why hedge funds are not as prominent here, as in the US. One lawyer (though she does not practice securities law) told me that Canadian Hedge Funds are not allowed to invest in US equities because of some odd reason, and because she could not give me a reason, I'm dismissing that claim.
Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated because it is unsettling to see this. Thank you.
My guess, is a combination of factors.
Smaller population (1/10th of US)
Population not highly concentrated near financial centers (relative to U.S.)
Slightly less wealth concentration at the top (relative to U.S.) means smaller pool of potential hedge fund investors
Lack of financial education among investors (eg. many Canadians still hold multi-million $ portfolios full of Mutual funds paying 2-3% MERs)
Perhaps a more conservative attitude towards investing (on average, among wealthy Canadian investors).
Perhaps lower risk-taking in general in Canadian culture?
Lack of flagship Canadian hedge funds with amazing results to build local hype for hedge funds?
curious to hear thoughts from other people here.
-
I have a relatively concentrated position (won't go into detail why). I was OK with holding it through the run-up given the fact that I thought there was a floor on the stock- If Mnuchin failed, we still had the courts. if the courts failed, we still had Mnuchin. Therefore, there was a margin of safety on the stock price. We don't have that anymore.
It's a difficult decision.
I understand your frustration with one court (Perry) being partially affirmed (arguably the part that impacts pref shares the least), but keep in mind that there are many cases still pending... Delaware, Sweeney, Collins, etc. With that said, I totally can understand why somebody would want to sell a portion of their holdings given the uncertainty. Markets, and people make up the markets, mostly hate uncertainty. I'm standing pat because I still really like the potential reward given the risk.
for me it's a bet on America.
Either you think someone --- a politician(s) or a judge -- will provide justice or you don't.
there is plenty of room for everyone to share in the outstanding work the employees of FNMA and FMCC have produced.
all that said, we're only a week removed from a couple setbacks so there's likely more shareholder turnover involved over the near term. after a major gap drawdown it takes time.
Judges and politicians often don't provide the justice we seek or think we deserve. Good luck to all!
-
http://www.cknw.com/2017/01/29/267389/
The average sale price is 28% lower now. Though people are still holding on at this time and still in denial. Things should get interesting this fall if the market doesn't bounce back. Acceptance may set in
These kind of articles are not very useful. They rarely look at any of the actual data and draw any provable conclusions.
If you look at the Zolo website you can see that the number of Detached Properties Sold in Jan 6-Feb3 is down 73%. This could completely account for the lower average sales price. (fewer sales of expensive properties). The number of townhouses and condos sold are down 61%.
Perhaps the author has no understanding of simple mathematics or perhaps they are just writing whatever is "popular" to get eyeballs on their crappy article.
-
I was reading about this a couple years ago, check out the online forums here: www.tugbbs.com
Lots of good advice and you can offer it for sale in the forums or at least see what some similar timeshares are selling for. As someone else said above, sometimes you have to pay all costs to give it to someone, just to get a taker. IIRC, sometimes it's possible to transfer it back to the timeshare company without paying as much in transfer costs/legal costs.
-
"It's really a shame Romney or Bloomberg were not the candidates. They would have been FAR BETTER than either Clinton or Trump."
If you read the political threads on this site, you will see that it doesn't matter who runs against Hillary. The Left is all about demonizing their opponents no matter what or who they are.
Some here say that they would have voted for Kasich. I agree that some yes but, the majority of those who speak a lot to trash Trump would never have. They would have found dirt on him and made him the biggest evil. They did the same with Romney.
You can't win with people who demonize their opponents by controlling the media a la NAZI Germany. Also another lie that NAZI's were from the right. They were socialists and racist.
They love to say that Conservatives are racists which is a lie. The first President to invite a black man for dinner in the White House was Teddy Roosevelt... a Republican. The President who did the most to liberate America from slavery was Abraham Lincoln... a Republican.
Cardboard
Cardboard,
You might be interested to read about the evolution of the Republican and Democratic Parties over US history. At one time the Democrats were proponents of "small govt" and "conservative values" like keeping slavery. The ideologies and values of the parties have switched a couple times over the 150 years since Lincoln. I'm no expert on history or politics, but I think making comparisons between Republican party of Abe Lincoln's era and Republican party of today seems completely misguided and irrelevant.
-
Some of those Winstar cases were in court for many, many years. Consider time value of money too. Can be tough situation when politics and public optics are involved. Govt may act non-rationally with deep pockets to keep paying legal costs in perpetuity. Long enough for other unforeseeable factors to affect your position.
For some reason that link is broken in my browser.
Maybe this one will work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Winstar_Corp.
also see
-
thanks sculpin. very interesting.
At first I wondered if the pref may be redeemed by TD after purchase, but the prefs look like an obligation of GMP Capital not of Richardson GMP (the unit which is in play). If Richardson GMP is acquired, what impact do you see on the prefs? Do you think they will re-rate higher due to more liquidity at GMP Capital. GMP Capital sounds concentrated on oil and gas sector. Do you think that makes this a bet on recovery in energy sector?
thanks for posting this.
-
Not investment related but what would the reason a place like Nanaimo has escaped the bubble? We're always on the look out to potentially move west and Nanaimo has some beautiful homes close to everything and have a harbour view for under $600k.
Is it the simple fact it's not on the mainland?
Edit: in case anyone is interested, this is what $499k gets you. Ten minutes to Discovery Harbour and shopping.
Nanaimo is a relatively small city with (IMO), a moderately developed economy. For many years it was not considered one of the nicer cities on Vancouver Island. The downtown core was pretty rundown for a long time (decades). I think the city is a much nicer place now and perception of it is changing. However, for the last 20 years (IMO) most retirees chose places on the island like Victoria, Saltair, Courtenay, Parksville.
Vancouver Island is just far enough away that it acts like a separate market. Residents are somewhat held hostage by BC Ferry access to the mainland. The crossing takes more than 90min including unloading time and in the summer you often have to arrive more than 60 minutes before departure to make it on the boat if you are bringing a car. The costs are ~$20/person and $60/regular sized vehicle for a one way trip. It's too expensive and time-consuming for most people to do as a daily commute to Vancouver (although I have met people that do it).
-
In Canada, banks will lend to you with insurance with 5% down for the first $500k, and then 10% for the next $500k. At that point you need 20% down.
As a new immigrant you need 35% down with no Canadian source of income or assets other than the down payment in Canada.
Do you think they are using the same rules on $30M properties like the house in the article a few posts back?
-
Recognizing foreign income - What is the FI's recourse? The purchaser wins big if there is appreciation and walks away if the market goes the other way.
A perfect set up if I were to attract speculation.
i believe for foreigners there is a limit - i think the article suggests a very high down payment (21M down , $9.9M mortgage) whereas a typical canadian / resident with Canadian income can get away with 10% down I believe.
SO the bank is willing to take that risk.
I doubt that banks give a mortgage with only 10% down on these rare, properties that are in the top 1%. That would not be very prudent for the bank given the magnitude of historical price movements in the luxury and vacation property markets.
-
http://vancouversun.com/storyline/student-owns-31-1-million-point-grey-mansion
LOL - this is the typical phenomenon...
question is how much more money will flood into Vancouver RE
How do they get mortgages for these properties? Where's the income coming from? If there's a default, is there recourse?
Many dont need mortgage. Not sure how they move so much cash over given the Chinese regulation...
Circumventing the regulation limiting it to $50,000 annually has been covered in the media a bit already. One way is paying a bunch of people a fee to use their $50,000 allocation. I'm sure there are many other methods.
-
yea, in those scenarios you are correct.
Also from the point of view of paying down debt we've seen pretty clearly that it's very hard to do at a large scale. Pretty much the only hope is to inflate it away. Not easy in a low inflation environment.
Personally I don't know what people are thinking. Last year my sister bought a $550,000 house in the middle of nowhere with 2% down. She is making 44k/year. TD wouldn't give her a mortgage. CIBC saw no problem with that.
RB, that is interesting. Are you saying you don't know what CIBC was thinking in giving her that mortgage? Or what she was thinking in taking it? Or both?
Canadians earning $44k/year can expect an aftertax income of about $36,000.
A 540,000 mortgage on 3 year variable at 2.7% is about $2500/mo payment. That leaves only $500/mo for all other expenses, property tax, repairs, groceries, utilities? Can that be right? What am I missing here? Does she have a tenant to help with rent? Other sources of income?
-
I wouldn't trade my wife and kid for millions ;)
your wife reads this board too? ;)
-
In my anecdotal cases, people bought their vehicles new and had subpar experiences. It prevented me from even considering those models :- ).
The experience gets much worse after about 10 years. So many beautiful bmw and mercedes priced around the same amount as similar aged Toyota Matrix. Example is a Mercedes or BMW top of the line wagon or estate car selling for ~$12,000 and the sellers say stuff like, I recently spent $3000 in repairs this year and $2000 last year. Lol, that is probably the run rate for the next five years. Compared to the Toyota, maybe $300 per year in repair work. You don't buy an old merc or BMW for the value. Purely about driving experience and status..
-
I think the time to use leverage is when there is a fairly clear point of maximum pessimism in the market, i.e., some clear inefficiency or irrationality you can point to to explain why bargains are present. Also, most of my margin went to buying BRK stock when it was close to book value, something I thought was a no-brainer.
I can borrow a year's base salary from my employer at 3%.
The market crashes and BRK falls with it to BV (or below), I'll take advantage of it.
At the point of maximum pessimism strange things are usually happening. Do you know anyone at your company that was able to initiate a draw on this loan in early 2009? The reason I ask is that a lot of companies had money in commercial paper that suddenly they couldnt cash in.. leading to liquidity problems and inability to meet commitment to perks like employee loans. Some people had access to Home Equity LOC suddenly frozen during the 2009 crisis. All I'm saying is be careful about what you count on as a source of liquidity during a true crisis.
-
But as history
shows, being bullish in 1929, when the Dow Jones hit 400, meant you had to wait 25 years (until 1954) before the
Dow Jones saw 400 again. As they say, caveat emptor!
The implication seems to be that you had to wait 25 years to break even!
But adjusting for dividends and inflation, it only took 7 years for investors to break even!!
The dividend yield at the stock market bottom in 1933 was close to 14% !!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/26stra.html?_r=0 !!!!
A better measure of market performance would be from Shiller data or even simulated S&P 500 numbers, since Dow is not a good representation of the market and it was unduly impacted by its decision in the late 1930's to drop IBM from its index!
Thank you!
Vinod!
Vinod!
There is a problem with thinking people can just sit through a downturn.
In the 1930s many people lost their jobs and had to liquidate all investments just to pay mortgage and groceries!
Even successful professionals like doctors/lawyers that didn't lose their jobs, couldn't collect their receivables because all of their customers were broke. There was simply no money around! But they still had to pay their overhead.
"The Great Depression: a Diary" by Benjamin Roth is a great insight into this (it has one or two entries per week). He was a lawyer living in a steel town and his town may have been worse off than some places. He continuously complains "if only he had a few spare dollars to invest" and how cheaply priced the stocks are. He barely had a spare nickel.
My point is: if we do see a repeat of the Great Depression some day I think just about everyone will be surprised at how bad things can get!
:-\
-
The graph in this article needs to be seen to be believed.
http://www.news1130.com/2016/02/02/vancouver-house-price-new-record/
That is very interesting chart. Again there is an issues with statistics/data. I wish they would publish the median value. I wonder what it would look like. I think it would show what the price increases were on a "more typical" house and be less skewed by the most expensive properties. Maybe the median is only up 10% this year. who knows.
--
edit: okay I stopped being lazy. and spent a couple minutes with google.
MLS has the Home Price Index (HPI) which is calculated using the median price instead of the average price. I opened this report for Feb 2016 http://www.rebgv.org/sites/default/files/REBGV%20Stats%20Pkg%20February%202016.pdf
In the first table in that report you can discover the median price increase in the last 12 months to Feb 2016 for Detached houses, townhouse and apartments in various areas. eg. Vancouver East, Vancouver West, West Vancouver, Burnaby South, et al.
or consolidated to Greater Vancouver level. All numbers are lower than the headline 30% increase, most of them are in the mid-20s.
Given that the median prices are increasing at lower rate than average I think that the higher end properties are going up a lot more than 30% in the past year. It's tough luck to be a millionaire in Vancouver if you haven't bought your 3 million house yet :)
-
That is the hot money that may be coming in and will be first to leave when and if things go south. Just makes for larger swings. The unfortunate thing is that this is real estate that we are talking about that is being used to speculate and tends to have a large impact with each move because more people own homes and leverage. Leverage can be 20x.
For perspective - Last year home prices increased 30% in Vancouver on top of a 15 year run up. There are several examples where I know people who are turning around and selling a house the same day for $90k more than the purchase price.
Never been easier to get rich.
That is definitely how it looks! I used to believe the following expression would come true "what the wise man does in the beginning the fool does in the end". But not sign of that yet. It's a crazy time.
There is no advantage to having that additional volatility in the housing market. I keep thinking hot money flows in real estate just seems like it will end badly some day. That was essentially the problem in the US real estate boom in early/mid 2000s, except the hot money was coming from inside the country (people that couldnt *really* afford the mortgage, or people that bought more properties than they could handle because credit terms were soooo loose - you had a pulse, you could get a zero-down IO mortgage).
-
Nodnub - I was talking about PR's. It was just that I used a short form when you asked for the source. If you look at the graph in the article it does not look like a one time read - It looks like that is the trend. It is possible that 2004 was an anomaly. I do not know for sure though.
Yes I see what you are saying. I think this is a more telling excerpt from that article.
Henry Yu, a history professor at the University of B.C. who studies migration between China and Canada’s west coast, said the decline in permanent residents does not mean there are fewer Chinese in B.C.“What you’re seeing is the benefits of permanent residency have declined over time. It doesn’t mean there are less Chinese here. It just means that permanent residency as a desirable decision has declined, at times precipitously.”
Yu points to the former Conservative government’s introduction of a 10-year super visa as “ground changing.” Super visas are valid for 10 years and allow parents and grandparents to visit children in Canada for up to two years at a time. The government introduced the program in 2011 as it capped the number of new permanent residence applications for parents and grandparents it would accept because of a lengthy backlog.
For Chinese parents who have children studying in Canada, for example, it often makes more sense to apply for a super visa than for permanent residence, Yu explained.
“If you have a 10-year super visa, then what’s the upside of being a (permanent resident)? In fact, there’s quite a few downsides to being a (permanent resident),” Yu said, noting that having to pay taxes in Canada is at the top of that list. There is also no requirement to be a permanent resident in order to own property in Canada.
Again, I would love to have these people come and stay and become permanent residents and become citizens and work and pay tax in Canada. But if the parents live and work overseas and buys a big house for their 18 year old kid to come study here and live in the big house by themself and use it as a tax dodge (personal residence exemption), then what value does that family contribute to Canadian society?
You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you
in General Discussion
Posted
Thanks rkbabang, those are very interesting quotes, and a good summary of how I think much of the time.
However, I also see a downside to this approach. Not "believing" in very much or not taking much for granted forces you to constantly re-evaluate every situation you come across. If we recall that half the population has an IQ below 100... just think about that for a moment... then we can see that many people won't have the luxury of constantly evaluating their beliefs in each situation. They need a consistent worldview that allows them to navigate their life efficiently and get back to putting food on the table. I think the benefit of belief structures is just that! It gives people a simple framework to help them deal with the world at large and respond to things that come up without doing serious analysis of each situation.