-
Posts
456 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blugolds
-
-
1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:
I am not sure where BHE is held, but suspect it’s at the insurance level as well. However, if it is were possible to spin BHE it would make the least sense because BHE has so much depreciation that they have a negative income tax rate, meaning they reduce taxes for the rest of Berkshire as long as they belong to the conglomerate and would lose those tax credits if they were stand-alone. I think BHE is actually the least likely part to be spun off.
I think the easiest so spin off would be the large minors stakes that also present some deadwood like KFC or maybe even KO. They are not controlled by Berkshire, so Berkshire could sell them off, as ai think they are more or less sentimental holdings in WEB coffee can portfolio and unlikely to outperform in the future,
Also IMO BHE has the largest potential for deployment of tremendous amounts of future capital for "satisfactory" rates of return. Who knows what the future holds as far as the path the US takes with energy, but BHE has huge advantages in the ability to offer options with little red tape, quick decisions made to go in directions that would otherwise require approval from shareholders, securing of financing etc with competitors that doesnt exist with BHE. Potential for almost unlimited investment if the numbers make sense providing win/win opportunities for customers, states and BRK shareholders. When I look at BRK as a whole, BHE is what gets me most excited for the future as a shareholder.
-
2 hours ago, Viking said:
What a frightening video. What do we know with 100% certainty? Trump demands from his people loyalty to Trump above all else. So if relected what is job #1? To remake the US military in his image. To replace all the top leaders with people who put loyalty to Trump above the US Constitution, rule of law etc. Now where have we seen this playbook before?He says he will end Ukraine war in 24 hours. Seriously? There are two ways to do this:
1.) throw Ukraine under the bus
2.) give Putin whatever he wants
Amazing America has got to where it is without Trump all these years. Clearly the only way America will survive is if Trump is re-elected...and we cant afford to not have him in office ever again, perhaps its in the best interest of America to abolish the term restrictions for the presidency...so that we may benefit from his superior guidance and leadership for the rest of his life..hopefully he will also train his son in the ways as a future successor.
Biden is a senile goof, plenty of issues there...Trump is the ultimate con-man. Amazing how he claims to be an expert in everything and the ONLY one with the right answers.
Politicians are synonymous with empty promises..but Trumps MO is that the country is doomed without only HIM. The US has had a lot of bad leadership in its history, and it's still here, it will survive Biden, and it will be fine without Trump. Plenty of other options on either side of the aisle, no reason to go back to this Joker.
-
1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:
Chances are that if you are working and have a 401k or equivalent, then you also have exposure to index funds. That’s the case for me and my wife and pretty much anyone I know,
Same, Im that guy with savings plan (401K) with limited options, all high ER funds with mediocre to poor returns vs SP, so the index with ultra low ER and DCA makes it appealing, not ideal, just better than other options in that account.Ironically, I have more options investing HSA funds than in my 401K, IRA is also self directed with unlimited options. Taxable holds significantly more than 401K and obviously you can do what you like with that, so I view the 401K as the set and forget, dont pay much attention to it even though its maxed every year for the last decade plus.
Can only play the hand you're dealt as best you can.
Out of all investment dollars, I've always mentally considered 401k and Pension as a cherry on top, main focus has always been IRA,HSA and taxable accounts, these hold the bulk anyhow and the only which I can "control".
-
9 minutes ago, Gregmal said:
Yup. Except now we ve been conditioned to see them as signs of the coming apocalypse. They’re not
Consumers have jobs, and no foreseeable risk of the majority losing them, and they don’t have to worry about losing their homes/housing…so there really is no reason to stop spending. They might complain about the price of gas, or utilities or groceries or whatever else, but do any of them really STOP buying? Do you really think they’re gonna say…whoa, alright, beans n franks this month kids, Nope, its the name brand sugar cereal, snacks, pop, chips, still grabbin that pack of Marbs, still grabbin the case of beer, still gettin the new iPhone, new pair of Nikes, LULU pants etc etc…American consumers gonna consume…give ‘em a job, and a place to sleep, a plastic card and get the F outta their way.
Think about it, pervious generations had magazine ads, and TV commercials to brainwash them as consumers…now the avg American spends how much time on social media per day, that is essentially one GIANT commercial for all things consumable? If its not the brands, companies themselves its their influencers, reels, snaps, toks telling people that if you wanna be cool, pretty, rich etc this is what you need.There has never been a time in human history that the avg person has been more inundated with consumer branding, advertisements etc telling them every where they look, SPEND! BUY! Literally never in history has there been more minutes out of every day that the avg American has been subject to marketing.
I used to think that more consumers thought like I did, but that was flawed thinking, they don’t. If I don’t buy something that I think it overpriced, its on principle, they don’t think that way, they complain and buy anyway, because lets be real, if the majority of them were financially literate and made good choices they wouldnt be in the situation they’re in statistically, they don’t make good choices when it comes to their health, and they don’t make good choices when it comes to their bank account/checkbook.
I called 5 dealerships in 2 states last week to price out a new Honda ATV 4 wheeler for the cabin, best price, I would finance with them if it gave me a better OTD price (then just pay off the next month) or pay cash, up to them. Every single one came back between $1900-$2200 OVER MSRP. 2 years ago my cousin bought one for $200 UNDER MSRP and it wasnt a special deal, and these weren’t limited hard to find machines, they had 8-10 in stock ready to go, in all 3 color options. Consumers are spending, stimulus bucks or not, they don’t care, I think they just accept the new normal, they whine and complain but none of them actually STOP buying, it ends up “well, what are ya gonna do?” And that is the extent of it and the music plays on.
I don’t see any serious scary stuff that is gonna be a problem, and like I said, the loss of purchasing power for the middle class isnt gonna do it, because they’ve been getting F’d for decades and here we are, still spendin, so thats nothing to worry about from a consumer spending standpoint.
The beast is alive and it needs to feed, let it eat.
-
@changegonnacomewhat your describing has been happening to the middle class for decades, its just sped up a little.
And it will continue. Earnings don’t have to decrease, a little creative finance and marketing…smaller portions in the same packaging, taller/thinner packaging to hide the smaller portions but appear the same..maintains margins. Thinner rolls, smaller cans, lighter bags.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/01/package-sizes-shrink-inflation/
For items that packaging cant be manipulated by, vehicles, electronics etc. Especially those that are financed, they extend the note and close them on payments, what’s that? You want to be below $XXX/mo, no problem we can do that, for <$XXX/mo….for 124 mo you’ll be enjoying your new XYZ as soon as we finish the paperwork.
The avg consumer doesn’t care about inflation…they say it hurts, and they feel it, but look at the consumer debt, they’re putting significant amounts of monthly expenses on credit cards, thats how they are making it, because they haven’t got a “Real” raise in decades..make the minimum payment on the collection of cards in your wallet and kick the can down the road. If they want a bag of Doritos, they’re gonna buy it even if it’s now $8. They might complain, but they still buy it, and they still have all the other stuff, the memberships, the subscriptions, the snacks, the clothes, vehicles etc. Charge it.
-
14 hours ago, Ross812 said:
In Georgia the average crew member at MCD makes $12.09 in New Jersey its $13.29. I'd say it not government programs. In NJ median income is 39k versus 30k in GA; it might just be typical economics. MCD charges what the market will bear.
^^ This
Same with LULU, everything is priced to the upper level of what the market will bear. All companies want to increase prices to find that line where it negatively impacts sales...then back off just a touch. isnt this basic theory?
I live in the largest metro area between this state and my neighboring home state. McDonlads prices here are actually not much different than my home area. That is to say, $8 for breakfast meal, around $13 for a burger value meal. That actually surprised me. I have a cabin in a small recreational community about 2.5hrs from the metro. Summer sees some tourism but the rest of the year its dead. Also, the county is the poorest in the state, by a wide margin, I saw the statistics and its like 40+% below the poverty line and on assistance, pretty much zero college degrees, avg age mid 40's. Wages at that Mcdonalds are low, primarily 16yr old kids at the counter with one middle aged manager. Its not labor costs, they are charging what the market will support (or what they can get away with, however you want to look at it). Ironically I have also noticed that when at the cabin, there is a WMT about 15-20 min away, only offering like that for an least an hour in every direction...the prices at that WMT are HIGHER for many things than at home in the major metropolitan area! These are for staples that we regularly buy at home, and dont want to pack the car when we go, so we end up shopping there for the stuff at the cabin. Noticeably higher prices and I cant help but feel for those folks that live there year round in a 1970's trailer with bags of leaves around the skirting for insulation, 10 immobile cars in the front yard, the entire county besides the stuff right around the lake is straight out of a Jeff Foxworthy routine.
15 hours ago, Dinar said:There is a simple explanation. In NJ, there is no incentive to work due to very generous welfare programs, and so labor costs and arm and a leg. In the South, you do not have generous welfare programs, so people actually work, labor supply is higher and hence cost of labor is lower. Real estate costs of course play a role as well, but they are dominated by labor costs.
I was actually just talking to a guy I know who has moved back to our area with our company, he was previously down south working at a BMW plant setting some things up for them. It was a nightmare with labor. Nobody wanted to work, even the employees he dealt with. Income is low, education is poor and they are getting paid around $30k/yr full time. If you look at the stats on several southern states it is similar to the county I described above. There are entire counties down south with the majority of the pop on welfare. Work ethic and employee/employer understanding is completely different north/south. Nobody wants to work down there. Those that do are majority migrants, legal or illegal. My coworker said it was a serious problem filling positions, and when filled they literally showed up half of the week. Firing them didnt matter because you would just be back at square one, and the new hire would just pull the same stuff once on board. I could not believe the stories he was telling me.
Regardless, we see it everywhere. I had a new shop built last fall. Menards used to have a $175 delivery charge and raised it to $250 due to fuel costs when diesel was at its peak...fuel surcharge has remained in place while fuel costs have returned in line, more normal. Compare $3.50 diesel to $5.50 diesel, avg delivery route and the fact that the semi truck that delivered my materials made 3 other stops all paying the increased fuel surcharge. There is fat there. Nobody said that businesses had to be fair in what they charge and a capitalist would argue that it is the duty of the business to charge the absolute most they can. I suspect they will never drop, but what do you do? People need materials delivered..you cant transport trusses, pallets of sheeting, sheets of steel roofing/siding in your pickup or trailer so the consumer is faced with eating the hike or not doing the project. Granted, as a percentage of overall project cost it is nothing, but combine that with the fact that literally everything at Menards is now 3x the price it was a year or two ago and it adds up.
-
8 hours ago, Xerxes said:
Ehhhh ... What happened here, folks ...
I thought we were talking about M1 Abrams
Yes back to the topic at hand. Did you see the German interview with Petraeus? He explained why the M1 shipping to theatre was unlikely (he didnt say absolutely not) due to the complexity of the weapon and maintenance. I have seen the M1 and watched many videos of teams operating but I guess naively did not consider maintenance requirements on the battlefield.
I have no first hand knowledge of the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine powering the tank. I do have first hand knowledge of the GE LM6000 which is a turbo shaft aeroderivative. Different applications for sure, but also similarities in that the maintenance on these is very particular, very specialized and when running properly are amazing, however when there are issues, you aren’t gonna pull off a “farmer fix” with a pair of vice grips and bailing twine. (My experience is that they are very finicky and very regularly have “issues”) You have to have specialized technicians perform the work to spec. Even when operating perfectly, the required maintenance interval is relatively small. Think of it like aircraft that need “annuals” at X amount of hours. If you think about that, to take the tank out for a day or so, it has to return to be serviced for several days potentially, by an entire specialized crew. I saw one report that for every hour of operation on the M1 hour meter it requires 8hrs of maintenance. There is a reason that they have entire crews of “system maintainers” aka mechanics to service these. When you consider the hydraulics, electronics, optics, weapons etc and the maintenance, parts, and logistics of servicing these machines just to operate and compare that to the Leopard Diesel its easy to see which option makes the most sense. I saw an article that said the US will send 31 M1 to Ukraine but unsure how much they will be used or in what capacity, perhaps power perceived is power achieved in that respect. Or it was a symbolic shipment that gave the green light to Germany, I don’t know.
I have seen in person, annuals conducted on Airbus EC145 with dual turboshafts and what was required was staggering. The tools, space, cleanliness required to do basic maintenance was amazing and it’s hard for me to comprehend that being done in theatre when a simpler option is available that Ukraine is more familiar with.
-
2 hours ago, CGJB said:
For years the media reported on the Nazis in the Ukraine. Though they would like for everyone to forget that fact. See: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/azovreplist.html
Has been discussed numerous times, its one battalion. Like minded folks can be found in every military in the world probably, and when the wolves are knocking at the door Im not going to ask the guy in the foxhole next to me what his ideologies are as long as his gun is pointed down range.
US Military has documented skinheads as well as a significant number of MS13 gangsters.
Yes Nazi are bad, but it doesn’t detract from Russias actions, the real issue/problem.
-
12 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:
I'm going to stop responding because progress seems to be none and I'm kind of done. The above reactions all just prove that all my points are not understood or ignore and that your base knowledge here is too low to have a meaningful discussion.
I mean the guy not knowing that literally anyone with a below average computer can encrypt data in a way that no entity on Earth can decrypt it and subsequently not believing me because some news article "said so" is
Good luck with that is all I can say
(And this is not meant sarcastically I really wish the discourse here, this topic specifically, wasn't at the level it's at).
Was pretty clear that I had questions and was hoping you would answer, why post if not willing to explain and help people understand? Is that not the goal of this forum? Helping each other to understand?
-
14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:
I tried to reply to all your questions and statements. Let me know if I missed anything.
1. Insurance is a way to cope with a problem at a cost. The problem is lower with Bitcoin. Whether a third party way to change the nature of a downside (insurance changes a high variance, low probability cost to a low variance high probability cost) says nothing about the nature of the thing we are discussing. Insurance is theoretically possibly wrt every financial risk that is independent of the state.
So there is no insurance against loss of BTC you're saying. My point was with real estate, even though the insurance premium is a cost (that is covered by the renters monthly payment, essentially I am passing the cost on to them to insure the property that they are paying me rent to occupy, so it really doesnt cost ME anything) I am guarded against total loss of the asset. Hell I have owned properties before that actually would have benefited me to have burn down because the were insured for more than what I thought was FMV, the check from the insurance company would have been more than I could have sold the place for. I would obviously never commit fraud, but there is a reason that people do, or try. So the way I see it personally, there is no way I can have total loss with RE/insurance as an asset vs BTC, there are many ways to lose ie. hacking, loss of password, forgotten password, loss of thumb drive etc.
There are tons of reports of people losing/forgetting their passwords and employing professionals to "crack" it. So this it a double edged sword. At the risk of weakening my point, if you forgot the password, it is not total loss, it is still recoverable...BUT then what does that say about stored crypto security? Its either one of the other, either it is the ultimate security and unhackable, uncrackable...and when you forget/lose it, its gone...and that is some pretty serious risk...or its not...and then the risk comes from the fact that rather than "good guys" helping you get it back for a percentage...the "bad guys" can get it too.
14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:2. Two reasons: 1. Real estate is one of the easiest to seize for all governments because they more often have an excuse. Eg if they want to build a new building or highway on the land they declare it for the common good and force you to sell. If someone can force you to sell, especially at a price determined by them, you don't really own it.
Eminent domain is a little different. I will agree on the force of sale, that sucks, but you also have the option of legal representation to argue for a better price if you think its grossly under FMV.
From state/legal website:
State law on eminent domain condemnations is very clear that property owners have the right to receive at least the fair market value for their property when they don’t have a choice to decline the sale.
Fortunately, you do not have to simply accept whatever the government offers; you have the right to make a counter-offer and negotiate for the full amount you deserve.
Just compensation is based on what your property would be valued at on the open market, considering the various uses for the land. The government will base its offer on an appraisal conducted by an appraiser of its choice. You can then have an independent appraiser analyze the value of your land and present its findings, arguing that your land is actually worth more than the government’s offer.
So IMO that addresses the (potential) forced sale issue via eminent domain. To me the real issue is the price you receive for the asset, because the forced sale to me is nothing. Unless it is the Dutton ranch, in the family for hundreds of years I would say that the majority of people, if given FMV and forced to sell might be apprehensive but if made whole via FMV, would just move on. To play the devils advocate, you could say that forced sale to the gov could actually save them the hassle of showing, listing, the property, to be fair, that is assuming that gov offered FMV is indeed FMV and they didnt have to retain an attorney to negotiate a higher value.
But the real issue is the price determined by them right? But isnt that what is happening with BTC? Rather than the gov determining the price you can sell for, the market is? If the gov offered at or above FMV and forced me to sell...ok sounds good. I at least have the OPTION to negotiate a higher price, futile or not, there is no option for that in the market, if you want/have to sell for whatever reason..whatever the market is offering is what you get.
RE:
Can force sale (no big deal to me if not been in family for 4 generations)
Buyer determined price (negotiable)
= You really dont own it
BTC:
Cant force sale (unless margin)
Market/volume determines price (non-negotiable)
= but THIS you "really" own?
I dont see much difference really
14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:2. They can seize Real estate without your cooperation and Bitcoin only with your cooperation. This gives options eg waiting out the wannabe thieves or relocating to elsewhere. You can even theoretically promise some of these assets to people that would help you with dealing with w/e state is holding you hostage. None of hhese options exist at all with your assets already seized.
This is where we disagree. The gov has proven time and again that they can access/seize crypto.
There are tons of articles about how the Gov can find crypto and then sieze it. NONE of these criminals cooperated with authorities in these instances...still seized. Clearly the gov does NOT need your cooperation to find/sieze crypto. It would make it easier for them, but their abilities are getting better also, if they want it, they will find/take it, by not cooperating, ultimately you are just slowing them down, but if they want it, the end result is the same.
The Treasury Department has tried to crack down on the North Korean hackers’ targeting of cryptocurrency by sanctioning some accounts that they use to move money, and a “mixer,” or service that the hackers have allegedly used to launder stolen cryptocurrency.
by reviewing the Bitcoin public ledger, law enforcement was able to track multiple transfers of bitcoin and identify that approximately 63.7 bitcoins, representing the proceeds of the victim’s ransom payment, had been transferred to a specific address, for which the FBI has the “private key,” or the rough equivalent of a password needed to access assets accessible from the specific Bitcoin address. This bitcoin represents proceeds traceable to a computer intrusion and property involved in money laundering and may be seized pursuant to criminal and civil forfeiture statutes.
the DOJ used “clustering analysis” – essentially pattern recognition algorithms – to scan the blockchain for transaction patterns, thereby assisting investigators in untangling attempts to obfuscate the flow of funds.
US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui praised the method as “one of the most reliable bases for a search ever.” Federal law enforcement agencies have signed multimillion-dollar contracts with multiple developers of such tools, highlighting law enforcement’s focus on the cryptocurrency space and the important role the crypto community can play in helping the government root out illicit activity.
14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:You mention hacking. You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet and are properly encrypted. No amount of solid police work can change that. All the recovered keys by law enforcement were badly secured or given "voluntary". I mean theoretically they can torture it out of you but in reality they probably promised lower sentences or threathened with other things the owners considered worse than losing their property. It's in no way perfect but vastly superior to real estate.
This just isnt true. A couple of the articles I posted above showed that the keys/passwords were recovered even though encrypted! They were not badly secured! They were secured orders of magnitude better than the avg person with crypto, these were professionals that KNEW what they were doing and went to great lengths to hide/protect stolen crypto...still seized.
You said "You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet" so I'll ask again...I can not hand my friend a BTC for payment correct? Im honestly asking because I dont know and you didnt mention it, that I saw. So how do you facilitate a transaction? Im assuming your thumb drive doesnt have bluetooth that you put close to your friends wallet and they recognize each other and transfer funds...assuming this has to be done via the internet?
If that is the argument, BTC is only ultimately secure/safe when it is on an external drive, never touching the internet, and you remembering the password in your head, not writing it down anywhere, piece of paper in security deposit box (cause they look there with warrant too) or on a cloud drive somewhere...its only REALLY safe when you would have no ability to use it? Is this correct? So then what is the point of owning it if the argument is that it is safe from gov seizure (proven false) or hacking (proven false).
I just dont see the case for it being much safer...sure safer if you have it and never use it, then its no different than any other thumb drive I own that I never use, its essentially worthless. If I have a Ferrari, but I dont want to get a ticket in it, and I dont want to lose it to the repo man, and I dont want to get in an accident, and I dont want someone to steal it, so the only truly safe place for it is in a vault locked under a cave...what is the value of the Ferrari because I cant use it for what it is intended for...You cant make an argument that BTC is imperviable to seizure or theft ONLY when it is essentially then useless.
I could be wrong, maybe you dont need to use a gatekeeper to facilitate a transaction on the internet? Let me know if there is a way that I can use my BTC to buy things or pay people without ever using the internet, because there must be something Im missing here. I honestly dont see how those are valid arguments for BTC and if Im not understanding something I would like to know, Im being genuine here.
-
Please help me understand because when I read this I think:
Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin:
* Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own
That is why you have insurance...is there insurance for Bitcoin? Honest question, can you insure Bitcoin against left, or left of password/hacking? If my house/rental burned to the ground tomorrow, as long as everyone was safe, other than personal pictures or an heirloom, I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it, its fully insured at todays FMV.
* Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good)
Gov can take whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the item if they deem its use for illegal activity, terrorism etc.
I get it, keep your password on external drive in a security deposit box that only you know about...like burying gold in the backyard, or using a treasure map. BUT eventually to USE bitcoin dont you have to go online? Eventually? and if you are hacked etc cant they just be there waiting for you to access it? Or how about using some kind of "vinmo" equivalent to facilitate the transaction, what happens if they are hacked. I dont know much about how all this works so maybe Im exposing my ignorance, but I honestly dont know.
Through blockchain analysis and good old-fashioned police work, law enforcement and blockchain analytic experts was able to recover more than 50,000 bitcoin from Zhong. They even uncovered crypto stored on a computer submerged under blankets in a popcorn tin in a bathroom closet, according to the press release.
October 2022, Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, suffered a $570 million hack. The company said a bug in a smart contract enabled hackers to exploit a cross-chain bridge
Also the other thing Id mention, although maybe the guys in the thread here dont believe that BTC will replace fiat currency...I would say the VAST majority of guys I know that own BTC think it will, thats their entire shtick..they start with "only so many can be mined" then "better get in now while prices are down" then how much it "could" be worth when the last BTC is mined...then "gonna replace Fiat".
Its like there is a scripted pitch for crypto, yes shitecoins also but the majority of people are talking BTC cause thats the "real" one.
I guess another thing getting back to security..pass code secure on your thumb drive locked away...eventually you will use it online, through some platform..I cant hand my neighbor a BTC right? I had an employer once that had their own network, locked down, heavy security, log-in password, changed regularly, posters to stop hackers everywhere in the hallways, emails sent regularly trying to get employees to trip up from the IT team to teach suspicion etc. They had one little program that was on the network that pulled data from the internet to use in calculations..that was the one little pinhole in the entire fortress...and thats all it took. I guess I just do not believe that eventually, if someone wants something bad enough, and you are online, they are able to find a weakness and exploit it. Not saying that cant happen with a wad full of cash either...but I just have a hard time believing that BTC has no vulnerabilities.
Im open minded, these are just questions I have off the top of my head regarding the comparison and what I have seen/heard.
-
7 hours ago, Gregmal said:
When I think of hope, and dream, and all that, largely it refers to looking at something and having to connect a lot of bridges via assumptions to make something then vastly different.
The market is largely what it is today. The market is where it is...much of it off significantly. So what resembles optimism and hope for a thesis? That, or envisions of a scenario in which things go much lower because of all the bold? How do we determine that "the market" is just "figuring" all these kind of loose assumptions into everything instead of discounting them?
I'd hate to miss that was without question some utterly tremendous investment opportunity because of a hunch and a lot of assumptions that might make the market go down 10-20% more. Theres been A LOT, in many areas of the market. One of the things I dont get is that in general, people treat this in and out thing as a mitigation strategy for volatility. But volatility is one of the dominant aspects of investing in stocks. Like why would someone looking to invest in stocks, not being OK with volatility? Or worry about 10-20% fluctuations? THAT is what stocks do, by nature. It would be like wanting Chinese food but trying to avoid the carbs or msg. Or desiring pizza but saying hold the bread and the cheese. So I just dont get the point to holding a perspective that seeks to do the same.
I agree and I dont get it either. People talking out of both sides of their mouth and its a waste of time.
You hear about impending recessions that the market "just hasnt realized yet" and then in the next breathe complaints that there are no value opportunities because "efficient market theory" has priced everything in.
Humans have bias and naturally want to look for confirmation, reading tea leaves to paint a narrative that they either want...or fear.
Its much less stressful to play the ball as it lays. Take what is presented. To your point, markets are gonna market. These guys should WANT volatility! Why wouldnt you? I dont understand why someone that wasnt say, 5 years from retirement, WANT another recession, and view it as a once in a decade or more OPPURTUNITY to make some serious money. And honestly if you are close to retirement you should be positioned as such anyway, so even then it shouldnt be catastrophic.
The manic Mr Market analogy shouting crazy price offerings. Literally ANY other item goes on ridiculous discount...70" Sony flatscreen TV normally $1500 at the store, you walk buy and they have it on clearance for $100 or a $400 Xbox for $50 because some kid at the store made a mistake with the barcode scanner or read the pricing sheet wrong, nobody would assume the item was junk, they would just quietly fill a cart up and make their way to the checkout line, but when it comes to solid businesses that they have held or are looking to take a position in, they freak out. WHAT $400 XBOX is now worth $50?! I better go home, kick my kid off his game, and throw that thing on Craigslist while I still can!! LOL New BMW on the lot for $5000 anyone? Rolex in the display case for $300?
Philosophically I sometimes think of this like Walt Whitmans writings: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes". He is embracing something seen as a shortcoming (seeming unreliable), into a positive. The idea that a person has to adhere to hard principles all the time , but doesnt acknowledge that principles can change. We want consistency all the time or risk appearing weak or unreliable. Whitman says the person who never contradicts himself doesnt think deeply enough or is too simple minded.
Applied to the market. If you are thinking enough, your strategies should change as opportunities present, rather than wishing for (or expecting) slow and steady increases in the market that allow cookie cutter DCF projections, accept, expect, and embrace volatility. Acknowledge that the market doesnt always stick to hard principles and you dont have to either.
Continuing with your analogies, the ship is most safe in the harbor, but thats not what ships are made for. Safe space for investors does not present the best opportunity for investors. AND when you buy solid companies, for instance BRK (obviously) and COST, I think of the WB's analogy, to focus most on picking the right person to marry, and then not worry if you paid a little too much for the ring.
What a horrible way to live, constantly trying to predict things that are nearly impossible, stress when things are good because something MIGHT happen, stress when those fears become REALITY, stress when things happen that you didnt see coming. Just roll with it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, omagh said:
The IRS solicited the comments of investors as to whether these gains and losses should be backed out of AFSI or whether they should remain in the tax base. My guess is that they will remain in AFSI, potentially exposing Berkshire to a massive amount of book minimum tax.” ...
This sounds like the IRS was asking for investors opinion, what investor would be a proponent for paying tax on paper gains?
-
1 hour ago, ACooke said:
I heard some one say, a while back, this which made me laugh; 'Camera technology has made leaps and bounds this last few decades but every UFO sighting (and big foot) seems still to be taken with a potato'.
From someone that certainly follow this stuff - it doesn't seem you ever see one that isn't either vying for the world lowest res. photo, or seemingly taken during a catastrophic earthquake.
Pics/video taken by USAF are with cutting edge tech/radar and nobody believes that either, even with gov acknowledgment its unknown.
People either believe or dont believe and then confirm those bias...kinda like BTC
Im a natural skeptic and generally assume there is a reasonable explanation, for UFOs that is, BTC Ive made up my mind on lol
-
No position in BTC and I admit that Im probably a bit naïve to the idea. I understand the blockchain technology and its appeal and application for various things, there is value in that.
I think the biggest hinderance for me to ever get on board is the perceived (or actual) scarcity. In my life, anytime someone used "limited time only!", get in now before rates go up, one time offer, special pricing...insert attempted psychological manipulation to elicit desired response (usually separating you from your money) a red flag goes up. I cant help it. I've just seen it more times than I can count. When I hear friends who talk about why they are buying BTC, they ALWAYS start with "there are only so many that can be mined, so value has to go up". its like they draw a line in the sand between the haves and the have nots, those who were smart enough to buy (and get on the ark) and those who didnt heed the warning LOL. Half of them think that owning as much BTC as they can is gonna ensure they retire early, you would think the sky is the limit on the value of a BTC and the future Forbes list will be comprised solely of BTC bros who were in back when they were trading BTC for "likes" on forum threads.
So I could be wrong, and in a decade or two I'll be apologizing to my kids that Dad heard about it, knew about it, and sat there sucking his thumb, but if he wouldnt have had such reservations they would vacationing at the 3rd house in the Hamptons. But I just cant help it, maybe its past personal history avoiding things that didnt feel right, and later finding out that I was right, maybe its the bias against it influenced by Omaha, maybe its my own stubbornness. Also, at least from my experience talking in person with those I know who buy it, there seems to be a correlation between honest questions asked and how defensive they get. I knew a guy once who made an "investment" in something, it was an all out scam, his brother saw it, I saw it, and when you logically tried to help him see, he doubled down defensively, a real case study on human psychology. Im not calling BTC an all out scam, but the reaction from the guy I knew scammed, and the reaction from guys trying to sell me on BTC is similar, thats all Im saying.
There is one thing I wont argue. To some extent value perceived is value achieved. And there are plenty of people that value BTC. Im just not one of them.
I have no desire to trade it, and that is the only appeal I could see. So I put it in the too hard pile. Honestly if I could visualize how it plays out in 1-3-5 years and it didnt feel so scammy, and it wasnt in amongst a plethora of other shitcoins that everybody and their brother made up, I might be more inclined to look closer.
TBH Im seriously surprised that Trump hasnt started his own crypto coin. Im not kidding.
-
3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:
Tucker Carlson has basically become a Russian propaganda asset. He has been repeating repeating Russia propaganda in some cases, unfiltered. It’s not the first time, or second time or third time. He does this over end over.
Agreed, the guy turns my stomach.
There is literally no filter on the guy, spewing verbal diarrhea. The fact that this guy even has air time says a lot more about Fox, than it does about whatever "problem" he is targeting.
Social Media certainly contributes to division in the country...but even without it, as long as MSM puts these jokers front and center for views, its not gonna get better. Its sad really..
-
1 hour ago, ValueArb said:
Would it be fairer to say Xi believes in one party rule and one man ruling that party?
Because it clearly seems that he believes in capitalism, as long as it's under strict party controls.
Is Capitalism "under strict party controls" really Capitalism?
I see it as black and white, either it is capitalism for better or worse...or its not, because sooner or later that will be tested..and in the CCP, there is never any question as to who is gonna win that battle...
If kids have freedom to play outside, that is much different than "yard time" in a prison. One might have general guidelines from parents, stay out of the street, let me know where you are gonna be etc from parents, the other is in constant fear of yard brawls, has to stay with their race, gaurds watching them with rifles etc. Both are outside getting exercise, but totally different experience. That makes a huge difference IMO.
-
5 hours ago, Grenville said:
adesigar: Thanks for sharing your long tenor with Costco. I didn't know they offered auto/home. Have you had any claims expereince with them, how were they to deal with versus other carriers you might have had experience with?
also thank you for the heads up, Costco customer but didn’t know they offered insurance! Quick quote for auto offers yearly premium that is half the cost for me vs my current Gieco offering. Haven’t seen a premium increase yet but I’m sure it’s coming. I’ll likely switch to Costco offerings soon and have already told several friends/family to check out Costco offerings and at least get a quote!
Home owners has always been a “game”. Switch providers, after a couple years they start sneaking it up and then I start shopping. I pay everything individually but I wonder if with todays auto withdrawal for everything if providers of services that offer discounts for auto withdrawal sneak rates up thinking most people don’t notice. Incentivize customers to sign up with auto withdrawal for a small discount so they don’t watch as closely then slowly start raising. It’s actually kind of a smart strategy. At least this is what I have noticed, shared by multiple industries, gyms do the same, auto withdrawal setup, people stop going and they keep withdrawing, soooo many monthly withdrawals it’s hard to keep track and most people don’t watch closely. I’ve always wanted to know what was leaving the account and watch closely, can’t tell you how many times I’ve “caught” things that were wrong, double charges, mistakes etc. if I wasn’t watching closely would have never noticed. Makes ya think.
-
"Just give them the weapons they need so they can finish this thing."
Everyone supports Ukraine defending itself, but the only one that can finish it is Russia, ultimately they decide when it ends.
-
21 hours ago, Spekulatius said:
It is important to keep in mind that this interview was done in August 2022 when Russia had advanced as far as they ever came, just having captured Severodoneskt. Since then, the Russians have lost a huge area around Kyiv as well as Kherson. Not a whole lot winning as far as I can tell here. So it seems like Lex Friedman has been wrong on this matter, plain and simple.
Did you watch the entire discussion regarding the war? Lex just interviews, he had no position on the matter, he steel mans positions of his guests, or asks them to, but remains pretty neutral for the most part. He lets the guest take whatever position they want. Bustamante was the one taking a position. I agree, time has passed since the interview and thats a fair point, but I shared it because it was interesting to hear another point of view regarding the intelligence that Putin received, is receiving, as well as our own intelligence in the US and the rest of the world. His guest as an ex-CIA op has a good feel for that region of the world and how geopolitics work, gives another perspective that has been different than pretty much everything else I have heard anywhere. Im not saying that he is right, just that it is an interesting perspective that is different, and thats always valuable when contemplating anything. He also offered explanation for why Putin thought it would be a cake walk. Bustamante also was pretty adamant that it would be over by fall due to reliance on Russian gas for NATO countries heating, and obviously here we are approaching Christmas, so he hasn’t called everything correctly, but I think he makes some decent points overall regarding intelligence and geopolitical strategy and priorities.
-
I dont know how many people watch/listen to Lex, but he is of Ukranian/Russian heritage, moved to states around 13, father is professor, speaks Russian/English fluently. He recently went to Ukraine to interview there but hasnt published those interviews yet, he has interviewing Putin himself as a goal. Has some pretty good guests, all very interesting and does a good job asking questions and discussing a variety of topics.
I thought this episode was interesting, getting the take on the situation of an ex-CIA agent. Viewpoint on Ukraine starts at 13:50.
Agree with him or not, his take is interesting and I like hearing alternative viewpoints.
-
Like Charlie says...Invert!
50 in "business years"...
What businesses' around 50 years ago, are still with us.
1970 Full list Rank Company Revenues
($ millions)Profits
($ millions)General Motors 24,295.1 1,710.7 2 Exxon Mobil 14,929.8 1,047.6 3 Ford Motor 14,755.6 546.5 4 General Electric 8,448.0 278.0 5 Intl. Business Machines 7,197.3 933.9 6 Chrysler 7,052.2 88.8 7 Mobil 6,621.4 434.5 8 Texaco 5,867.9 769.8 9 ITT Industries 5,474.7 234.0 10 Gulf Oil 4,953.3 610.6 11 AT&T Technologies 4,883.2 227.0 12 U.S. Steel 4,754.1 217.2 13 ChevronTexaco 3,825.0 453.8 14 LTV 3,750.3 -38.3 15 DuPont 3,655.3 356.2 16 Shell Oil 3,537.1 291.2 17 CBS 3,509.2 149.9 18 Amoco 3,469.1 321.0 19 General Telephone & Electronics 3,262.0 237.4 20 Goodyear Tire & Rubber 3,215.3 158.2 21 RCA 3,187.9 151.3 22 Esmark 3,107.6 21.9 23 McDonnell Douglas 3,023.8 117.6 24 Union Carbide 2,933.0 186.2 25 Bethlehem Steel 2,927.7 156.5 26 Boeing 2,834.6 10.2 27 Eastman Kodak 2,747.2 401.1 28 Procter & Gamble 2,707.6 187.4 29 Atlantic Richfield 2,691.2 227.2 30 Rockwell Automation 2,667.3 64.9 31 Navistar International 2,652.8 63.8 32 Kraft 2,580.9 75.6 33 General Dynamics 2,508.8 2.5 34 Tenneco Automotive 2,450.6 165.5 35 Conoco 2,395.6 157.1 36 United Technologies 2,350.4 50.9 37 Firestone Tire & Rubber 2,278.9 116.7 38 ConocoPhillips 2,202.0 134.3 39 Litton Industries 2,176.6 82.3 40 Armour 2,153.4 18.1 41 Lockheed Martin 2,074.6 -32.6 42 Caterpillar 2,001.6 142.5 43 Monsanto 1,938.8 116.1 44 Occidental Petroleum 1,937.6 174.8 45 Singer 1,902.1 77.7 46 General Foods 1,893.8 132.9 47 Sunoco 1,837.8 152.3 48 Rapid-American 1,827.1 20.7 49 Dow Chemical 1,797.1 148.7 50 Sealed Air Thats the top 50 of Fortune 500 in 1970. Many still around, some got put out to pasture and some taken out back behind the barn. There are many on this list that I would bet will be around in another 50 for sure. So much changes, not a lot of "big tech" on this list... hard to predict, at one point probably every woman in America had a sewing machine in the house. Imagine if it was 1970 and we are having this discussion...some of those big names for sure some people would have thought that they would still be somewhere near the top..
I dont think its as hard as people think to pick businesses that will be around in 50 years There are many companies I can imagine a way when I really let my mind wander about future tech possibilities that I could see a time when they are taken out to pasture and that glide slope starts. What is difficult IMO is to determine where in the cycle the survivors will be, still a player, or put out to pasture in their downward glide slope. When that transition happens in the 50yr window and what your return will be assuming you predict with some degree of accuracy and you hold full term, will that return be "adequate". Then will that return be greater than the index? And if so, by how much, are you being compensated for taking some sort of concentration in hand picked names for the long haul vs the relatively easy index set it and forget it method. Will the juice be worth the squeeze.
Thinking of Warren talking about businesses that are so good that they can survive and make it even with an idiot running them because sooner or later there will be... those odds increase significantly the longer you go out on the timeline. I like BRK energy. Railroads, utilities, people are always gonna need water and possible that it becomes something people are willing to pay quite a bit more for in the future as scarcity gets worse. I think kids will still love Disney in 50 years even if they remake Mambi with a non-binary deer (joking, relax) Those ultra wide moat businesses that arent necessarily sexy like the big tech names. Otherwise its probably just best to pick the index for the majority of people, with the majority of their port, if unable to confidently figure the above, place some other side bets to catch a flier. Also doesnt have to be the top 50 in 50..I just used those as an example.
-
4 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:
It's also worth noting that "should have served jail time" can mean:
- "He broke a law and should have been sentenced to jail time", or,
- "There ought to be a law where he'd serve time for what he did", or
- "The punishment for what he did should be prison."
e.g. For #2, if someone is depressed, and someone else convinces them to kill themselves, it isn't a crime, but one can still reasonably believe that the convincer should go to prison.
For #3, if a man rapes a 15-year-old girl in a Sharia Law country, and the girl is stoned as a result and the man gets off with 10 lashes, one can still believe that the punishment for the man should involve prison.
You seem to be assuming #1, when others could be talking about #2 or #3.
I also think you are right.
Philosophy of law, morality, ethics, civil vs criminal, preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt all in play. Each interesting for discussion between avg joes on the sidelines, but none of it really matters until/unless those with the burden of proof have evidence to bring the claim and evidence to meet the applicable burden.
Subjective vs Objective perception. Perhaps the discrepancy is in the term "deserves" as it relates to jail time.
Subjectively Jones is a nutjob that should be held accountable for his actions and damage done to individuals and the country.
Objectively there are grey areas, criminal conviction could come via perjury thanks to his lawyers SNAFU releasing evidence to the prosecution showing documents existed that Jones previously denied, did the professional liar....lie? There often seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of grey and the size of someone's checkbook and political connections.
Lets be real, likely he'll work some deals, lawyers will lawyer, create some doubt, and he'll get out with a black eye but his pain/discomfort will not be unbearable. He's not going to be living on the streets.
As to @Sweet comment about the shocking $1.5B, I agree and see your point, let the punishment fit the crime. If we agree that $1.5B is startling, perhaps even unjust itself, the question becomes, what then is an appropriate number? @RedLionhas mentioned 3x actual damages as an example, personally I have no opinion on a specific dollar amount with the only criteria being significant enough to:
1. Provide adequate compensation for those wronged (who's to say what adequate is)
2 Serve as a deterrence for others who may behave in a similar way in the future
$1.5B probably accomplishes both, but could the same criteria be met with a lower judgment?
1. Probably
2. Dunno, depends on how deep the pockets are
-
5 hours ago, Dinar said:
@Gregmal, with all due respect, I disagree that 5% inflation on a consistent basis is not a problem. It confiscates the wealth of most people in society, except for the those able & willing to be long the stock market, and long property on a leveraged basis.
I dont necessarily think 5% is a problem, it can be, if the raising tide doesn't lift all boats...and it often doesnt.
As to confiscating wealth of society by those able and willing to take advantage of opportunities, yes I agree...and thats literally how it has always been throughout history regardless of interest rates, it might temporarily (in the grand scheme of things/history/timeline) ebb and flow...but the trend is clear and established...the low/middle class have been squeezed for the last 4-5 decades, I dont think that will ever change. They're gonna get squeezed at 2% and squeezed at 5%, might be a faster or slower squeeze. Everybody knows low heat is preferred, but low heat or high heat, the lobster is still getting cooked and the end result is the same for the little guy in the pot.
Buffett/Berkshire - general news
in Berkshire Hathaway
Posted