Blugolds

I find the fact that 152M Americans use TEMU daily very very hard to believe. Ive never used to once, Ive asked everyone around me if they have used it and they said no, and further asking reviewed one person that said they did just to try it and the item was junk and it turned them off to using it. Granted I could be in a small cohort that is not reflecting the majority but I find it hard to believe as that is basically half of all Americans, the claim is that they use it daily…there is no way. Edit, I responded before I saw others also question that figure, when I first saw it I literally chuckled out loud at such an outlandish claim, then after posting saw that others had questioned it also. Yeah that figure is complete BS.

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take lol. Buy planes with frozen funds, then sell them to China. Money laundered.

Yes exactly, discipline without love is abuse…but love without discipline can also be abuse. It’s that balance/dance but always out of love ultimately Parenting is challenging no matter the style needed. As a simpler analogy I worked a summer job in HS for a well known K9 breeder, specifically LE and Schutzhund, all Shepards and Malinois…he trained and bred at his kennel, competed, trained and shipped globally. He also bred, puppies were screened after 8 weeks or so to determine drive. Some were “treat’ motivated and some were “toy” motivated, the training and future potential (bite work.vs potential pet) was in large part determined by these early screenings. Additionally, the shepards would “bite someone because you asked them to” whereas the Malinois “wanted to bite everything, and only are prevented because you are telling them not to”…Both required different styles of training (ie leadership) to get the best out of the dog. It wasnt one size fits all. I think Parsad mentioned Phil Jackson in his post, he was another guy that was phenomenal at reading people ands determining what they needed in order for them to be at their best. I think there was a part in the series The Last Dance ( I love that series and I’ve watched it a couple times now) where they discuss Phils coaching style and his ability to get the best out of Dennis Rodman. Phil was able to empathetically realize that there was more there. If he had been a hard ass, Rodman would have rebelled, but since he took a more tailored approach, it worked out well for the Bulls.

AOC doesn’t have a chance IMO, my gosh it’s so easy, all either party has to do is present a rational, logical, coherent center-right or center-left candidate and they should sweep the whole thing. The party lines are drawn, it’s a competition for the middle 1-1.5% of voters and a vanilla candidate should do the trick. Instead of the dems realizing that extreme progressive lines they want to push don’t get it done and they lost the working class, they double down and think “we need to be MORE progressive!” US politics have turned into a comedy of errors. Frankly, a candidate with the qualities above would be a welcome change from Trump/Biden/Trump we’ve been plagued with, regardless of what party they hitch to. Just restore some decency and present someone with conduct becoming of the position, honestly who cares if it’s right or left.

Reminds me of a book I read about Vince Lombardi, if I remember correctly he was instructed/raised by Jesuits, all his players loved him. His management/leadership style was to taylor it to the individual. He said that some guys, you only got their best with negative reinforcement, they wouldn’t give you everything unless you challenged them, ie. “that guy is kicking your ass out there! I can’t believe you were a first round pick, my kids play better than that!” And that would make them rise to the challenge to prove you wrong..but other players needed the positive reinforcement to get the best out of them..ie. “I’ve seen you play and you’re 10x better than that DB, you have the ability to be in the hall of fame, now go out there and show him how unlucky he is to have to guard you” etc. The quality of a great leader IMO is the ability to read the room, and individually Taylor the needs of each team member and figure out what motivates them to get the best out of them. Lombardi was a master at this, he knew what motivated every single player on the team and the coaching staff. They all said he was tough but fair and they lived him for it, because they didn’t know it at the time but he was pulling the trigger on every one of them in their own unique need/way. He also said if you take a blanket approach it will only work for half. If you’re the hardest, some will benefit but the others will shutdown, and if you’re gentle, some will respond and some will shutdown, so the only logical answer is to individualize your style to each player if you want the very best they have to give…but that takes times, effort, knowledge and understanding, you’ve got to know yourself as well as others, and it’s difficult. There also was a thread of empathy that ran through his style, he genuinely wanted the player to be at their best.

Hahaha that’s hilarious!

translation?

My concern reminds me of what Warren said re: "in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you". The same can be said about people controlling policy. Before we get into the “but Biden was dumb too!” Yup you’re right, but he was also low energy lol. Trump et al do not strike me as high integrity for a variety of reasons. I also don’t have a ton of faith the intelligence box is checked. But the energy part of the equation is certainly there. With the major component being integrity, we should hope for them to be dumb and lazy, but my fear is that we have a lack of integrity, lack of intelligence and high degree of energy and the end result is undesirable. Im perfectly fine being wrong about this, in fact I genuinely hope I am.

Wasnt this debunked? https://www.housingwire.com/articles/compass-in-negotiations-to-buy-homeservices-of-america/

Fairfax, yesterday and today, orders filled 1340-1345, pretty good chunks. Lower it goes the happier I am, streets arent red yet.

I think about this also, your social circle also dictates thinking. When you are essentially surrounded by like minded folks that can be dangerous, group think. But the alternative can also mess with you. When literally everyone around you is telling you that YOU are the one who has it wrong, even though you know what you are seeing, it makes you question your own understanding etc. Somehow we have gotten away from the majority of people calling it how they see it. If you cannot criticize policy/action/behavior of BOTH the left and the right, then you arent thinking deep enough IMO. IMO this should be ENCOURAGED rather than labeled as a sellout, rhino etc. Both parties will get some things right and some things wrong, there doesnt have to be this ride or die mentality, its messed up. Its also easier to get swept up in "us" vs "them" with social media and algorithms feeding the perpetuation of whatever you clicked on once, and never providing alternatives, it ensures that once you step over the threshold of one type of thinking, you have to fight and claw your way out. Rational, reasonable thought doesnt get comments, doesnt get clicks or repost so it withers on the vine..the vitriol stuff sells and thus spreads, like a disease.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

I used to do that as well, like a 17 yr old boy on prom night...I've also waited and missed my pitch, now I try to wade into the pool rather than cannonball, once in a while I get lucky and bottom tick, but "I'd rather be mostly right, than precisely wrong" when buying. With names like BRK/FFH Im not worried about being precisely wrong anyway.

Would you keep your current place? Option could be to buy this place to secure it, then down the road or whenever just sell the current place and it becomes a swap. RE totally depends on location, so a good unit in a good location can be very valuable and in some instances provide a super solid return without market volatility. I dont know where you are at but if its something you think is valuable personally and financially with a long term view, its generally a pretty solid way to place a bet.

Notice how Mr Buffett is incredibly generous and quick to offer praise to those who deserve it, and to those who dont, a polite smile and chuckle. "With nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" He gets his point across, without saying a word.

@Saluki these are excellent recommendations, and they seem like common sense for the avg joe. The problem is that you would have to convince a very large group of very wealthy people to vote for change that is not in their best interest. As ideal as this is (and I want to believe) the chances of this happening are slim to none. I'd also repeal Citizens United...although if you set the constraints correctly as you outlined above, that would do a lot to reduce the damage Citizen United was able to do.

I noticed in the past (its been some time now) in the "what are you buying thread) there were times when @boilermaker75 and I were both writing BRK puts. I remember thinking, AHH a likeminded fellow! This is also something that I have done for years (slowed down recently) I thought it made sense if you could write puts at or close to BV (back when P/BV was a more accurate measure). Some years it added up to a nice bonus, nothing that would make me rich, but it was enough for a little vacation. In hindsight I would have been better off if they were assigned, and some were, but I was fine with it. I viewed it as heads I win, tails I dont lose. As mentioned, writing puts on something that I want to own at a lower price is a good way to get paid to wait until assigned at a price you want to own it. Same with Covered calls, Let it go and be fine with it or get paid to wait. I dont consider myself an options trader, just the basics for me and more as just something to do I never consider it an actual difference making strategy. When guys start talking about straddles, strangles, collars, butterflies I know enough to know that Im not experienced, or probably smart enough to use them to any advantage, I dont have the computing power physically or mentally to give myself an advantage against the pros. That was something that surprised me with Robin Hood and meme stock hysteria, suddenly everyone thought they were options experts! I always think of that saying, you should hope that someone's first endeavor is a loser, because if they have success, it can create a false sense of security, and they think they are smarter than they are. Better to be humbled right out of the gate than get more and more brazen and then blow-up bigger sums. My guess is that was the case with a lot of those Robin Hood wallstreetbets option "experts".

+1, its a means to an end for me, I enjoy it yes, just like finding a collector car stashed away in a barn someplace...but if I could be assured a 20% return in perpetuity (as one poster mentioned) without having to ever look at an investment again, I'd take it without hesitation.

First mentioned by Greenspan and later the title of Shillers book, if these meme coins arent the epitome of Irrational Exuberance....I honestly dont know what is. I'm hearing avg joe's talking about Trump Coin in the checkout, I've seen Lyft drivers trading in their car on their phone... A trump coin, a JD vance coin..and now a Melania coin...you cant make this stuff up, this is absolute insanity From Shillers book: "Irrational exuberance is the psychological basis of a speculative bubble. I define a speculative bubble as a situation in which news of price increases spurs investor enthusiasm, which spreads by psychological contagion from person to person, in the process amplifying stories that might justify the price increases, and bringing in a larger and larger class of investors who, despite doubts about the real value of an investment, are drawn to it partly by envy of others' successes and partly through a gamblers' excitement"

Also important to remember that Buffetts #1 priority is to protect the base, protect the shareholders..hindsight is 20/20 now re covid but at the time you’ll remember that there were daily tally’s and updates regarding fatalities, Ackman was crying on MNSBC telling the gov to shutdown to protect his dad, and they were parking Hospital ships in the NY harbor for extra beds..hindsight says that was a crazy overreaction and everyone should have been buying hand over fist…but AT THE TIME it was anybody’s guess as to how bad this would be and what would be the result, and when we would get control of it, the entire world was in chaos, every country. At least to me, it seems reasonable that someone who’s primary objective is to protect the base, shareholders money and remain the “Fortress” that is BRK would come out of the other side looking like they behaved “too conservatively” that is the luxury we have of coming out the other side relatively unscathed, to be able to say hey, the old man goofed…vs he hit it out of the park and made bank, you’ll probably never be able to say that about BRK, hey they took advantage of the opportunity, took the gamble and it paid off, made the intelligent bet when everyone else (the entire world) predicted doom and gloom and are richer for it. BRK goal is respectable returns while mitigating against significant loss of capital so by its very nature it will never ever make the sexy bet/call and as a shareholder you’ve gotta expect that and be Ok with it. If you’re primary goal is remain the fortress and protect shareholders from extreme loss of capital, it 100% logical that you would behave as Buffett did when the entire world is in chaos, there is no end in sight and it still hasn’t played out as to how bad it will be and how significant the impact will be. He errors on the side of caution and doesn’t swing for the fences if there is even 1% that it will be a detrimental blow to BRK. Didnt know the fed would be as aggressive as it was, it could have also been another GFC or worse and then people would have been saying why was he such a shmuck leaving so much exposure for BRK. Just playing devils advocate here, but it’s easy to forget what the viewpoint AT THE TIME was compared to what we know now and its easy to Monday morning QB that today. Do I wish he would have been a little less conservative and taken advantage of opportunities…yes, but I also understand why he didnt and Im ok with it.

I still come back to this push for “going green” with the last administration, obviously that is probably put on the back burner for now, but the other aspects of needing tremendous amounts of energy are still there. Elon has the ear of POTUS and he is gonna push for more tech in the country (my opinion) and especially if the crypto grifters have anything to do with it, we need tons of energy and the only logical way to produce that cost effective is Nuclear. I dont think I have ever heard nuclear nuclear nuclear being touted as much as I have in the past several months and I think that a good thing for BHE as they have already been in talks about it and were set up and ready to go with plans to produce mini reactors etc in partnership with Gates. BHE is an industry leader, Greg is one of if not the best in the energy space and they have a fat a juicy bankroll for assurances and the ability to move quickly if they get the green light. I still think further down the road 5-10-15 yrs BHE will be the golden goose of BRK that is where I see the most potential, solid stable returns on large amounts of invested capital. Takes a lot of pressure off finding creative ways to invest the money, just run the energy business intelligently, make sure ROIC is decent etc. At least that is a future I can imagine, I struggle imagining a future that looks much like we’ve seen over the past several decades, the culture will remain intact as that is WB primary concern, for shareholders/partners..but finding elephants and getting the call because its WB I dont think continues in the same fashion.

I've never understood the "we cant have their side pack the court, so we'll pack it with our side". If you wanted true balance, wouldn't you want equal representation on the court? Both left and right represented, men, women, minorities, whites...wouldnt that be optimal? I dont think a right packed court or a left packed court is the ideal balance. If there are 9 justices on the court you would think they would want 4 justices always from both left and right, when those positions open, they are filled from their respective "sides" regardless of the administration...then the 9th justice can be appointed based on administration in place when the opening occurs...something like that...would fix this silly behavior of "timing" and trying to pack with your "team". Would never happen because as much as each side hates the opportunity for the "other" side to pack in their favor, they also dont want to give up the ability for them to do it themselves eventually. She is blindfolded because justice is unbiased. Lady Justice holds scales to represent the impartiality of the court’s decisions. Everyone wants Lady Justice to be blindfolded...but the blindfold to be diaphanous.

People sell Whole life insurance policies as "investments" every day too.. "if you sell it, they will come"

True, "young" is subjective, but the challenge is that by the time you have a proven track record managing "real" amounts of money you're probably in that "strange definition of young"!

Basically yes, you get a "stepped up cost basis", the CB becomes the value at the time of death, gains after that, if sold will incur taxes. IE. Tom buys BRK 20 years ago with cost basis of $50, Tom dies today with BRK @ $460, shares transfer to Tom's son, Son's new cost basis on those inherited shares is $460, no tax owed. If Tom sells shares for $500 he pays tax on $40 gain. There is a difference between inheritance tax and estate tax. There is a dollar limit to this, and some states have taxes independent of federal (so even if you are below the threshold for federal taxes your state may want a cut) , however many of these can be avoided by putting assets in a trust. Generally for every instance Uncle Sam wants to stick his hand in your pocket with regard to large sums of money outside of W2 income, he also gives you a way to avoid it, because generally the people in those situations either create the laws or have enough money to influence those who do, and they can afford to pay legal experts to ensure they take advantage of every way out. Im not taking a political position with that statement, its just the rules of a game, since the rules dont seem to change significantly, the best you can do is learn the rules and/or pay those who play well to be on your team if you want to win.