SharperDingaan

The Greenland 'security' argument is essentially 3-fold. 1) Control over the eastern sea entrances into the North West Passage; 2) Control over the northern non-Russian mineral wealth; 3) Eastern extension of the 'Golden Dome'. Control Greenland and Russian seaborne o/g egress can be blockaded a lot more easily. Militarise the western controlled portions and you also control the shipping route from Europe to Asia. The further east the dome, the further the distance to the US eastern seaboard. Alaska was purchased from Russia and eventually became a US state; why can't Greenland also be purchased from Denmark, and become a US state as well? Yes things are done differently today (citizens get to vote on it), but otherwise it is no different to 1867 (Alaska purchase). Even if Greenlander's vote to stay in Denmark; nothing subsequently prevents Denmark from selling Greenland, and saving the annual 600 million Euro block grant. Just a different POV .... SD

Ultimately it will come down to a referendum; the population of Greenland electing to become either a US territory similar to a Puerto Rico, or a US state similar to Alaska, or remain as a Danish territory. Denmark/NATO having a cost/security incentive to let the US win ... by not campaigning too hard. Not what many would prefer to hear. SD

Greenland just calls the bluff, as does Canada. Greenland could quite easily kick the US out of the Pitiffuk Space Base, and hand over its administration to NATO. The US still has access via its NATO membership, and if it wants to launch/recover rockets .... pays a fee as it does now. To use force is to not only declare war on NATO, but also have a NATO member hard up against the entire width of its northern border. As they say in Texas ..... all hat, no cattle. Similarly, 'annexing' Canada by force is no different to 'annexing' Greenland; a declaration of war on NATO. Yet oddly, lots of press when talking about Greenland .... almost utter silence when talking of Canada ? How does that actually happen ? .... if freedom of the press is truly as loudly proclaimed ? Canada can easily point to its support of US policy for years, but like everything ... there is a time limit; the US had its opportunity, couldn't get off the pot, times have changed, and the world has moved on. Orange Boy will not be there forever. SD

This is the best one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS0wFiWpU4U SD

All hail to Greenland and the Democratic Penguins Republic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWMnNoHshRA SD

The Canada-China thing, and Canada-India thing later (assumed) is not a bad thing for the US. Stronger NA partners, more economically independent of the US, and more able to contribute to 'The Golden Dome' over NA. What cannot be publicly done directly between the US-China, can now be easily done via US-Canada-China. Not a bad thing. Canada doesn't have to buy US cars, it can make/buy Chinese instead for domestic use and/or export. Less reliance on US capital for the cost of the infrastructure build out is not a bad thing either; they also can't get the oil they own out ... without the pipe/docks required. Crops/Fishers have a market again, and a way of getting product to market. The US just pays world price less transport cost ... no more forced deep discounting by people struggling to keep their jobs. SD

+1 Including cash, bonds, and ETF; we typically hold 7-8 positions at most. Sidecars excluded as they are house funded, big digit share positions, held for long periods awaiting exit events; any one of which occurs, being life changing. SD

With a new family, your bias should be towards sectoral index funds; your decision limited strictly to how much to each index fund. Simply buy and hold, re-balance by allocating new funds to underweight sectors, and just enjoy/nurture what you have. Thereafter, should time and interest allow, learn how to do/use macro forecasting; global shock X, would affect your region how?, good or bad for which sectors?, over/underweight your index funds accordingly. Stay near to the industries you work in, as there may be employment impacts; hence time invested will also be proactive employment management. Once you have become experienced/comfortable with being the 'outlier', making/backing your own conclusions, you can think about raising your game. As many friends will not be doing this, expect to be mocked as a 'paranoiac', and become comfortable with it. Then learn how to be gracious, and not let the bankruptcies and related divorces of friends bother you ... as they fall by the wayside, and you steadily move ahead. Sounds simple .... but until you actually experience it. After that, keep reading the COBF board ... as most of your questions will already have been answered. Good luck! SD

There is nothing wrong with 'Macro' so long as the output is an actionable forecast in a geography of interest; the 'global view', to the 'regional view', to the 'o/g basin' view, to the companies within that o/g basin. The 'is the tide coming in or out', and from 'when to when'; not much different to Munger's forecasting of weather during his WWII service. Most people do it badly, have lost a lot of money on it, and will spark against lightning rods. Thickens the skin Oil is perhaps the most manipulated commodity in the world; most all stats are manipulated, so trust .... but verify in the o/g basin of interest. Most often that verifier will be you, and the noted anomalies are more valuable that the stats themselves. Stay within your circle of competence Thereafter it's just 'walking the talk'; using the haters, and having the confidence to back your own conclusions. Sometimes the haters are right; first time out you are truly sh1te! .... but same as with cell phones, the next time out you are better, and the next time after that better still Good luck! SD

If you want 10% CC rates, make CC's harder to get, buy the 30-day defaults, turn the funds owed into government debt, and garnishee the debtors wages. No different to how student loan debt is now treated. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-moving-forward-student-loan-184801146.html SD

We own two of these names Be sure that you fully understand what a 'special situation' in o/g typically is; M&A within the current cycle, on both the up and the down leg. Then be very clear on what you want ... dividends, blowout, scale, etc?, and what you will need to make it work. CJ is growing organically (Reford).... but it is also an acquisition target. The high dividend attracting income seekers, the current price reflecting unwarranted concern around the payout ratio. But CJ is also an obvious acquisition target if you believe that the acquirer will try to consolidate smaller oil sands companies in the up cycle. IPO is growing by acquisition, to achieve scale in the Cardium. The mystery is the size of the war chest, their discipline/wizardry, and the size of the potential acquisitions ... as the potential targets are already known. Much more a bet on the major backer, whereas a WEF (in the same space) is a bet on the jockey. Be prepared to trade around the name, temporarily up the investment should the market dump, and be willing to marry it for some time should you have to live with it. Most are not going to have the dividends of a CJ or IPO. Look at OBE. It is quite clear that the 2026 default is continuing buybacks, and ongoing drilling within FCF; OBE bought back 10% of their stock in 2025, and already have another 3-5% in 2026 locked up via pre paid contracts. The dynamic view is a further sale of Cardium assets, reducing debt, funding further buybacks, more drilling, and potentially ... a tuck-in acquisition. OBE has long been for sale. Some believe this will be the year, others think next year ... after the company has sold all other assets except the 35-40,000 bbl/d PR heavy oil. FCF could easily support a dividend of 12c/month; discount at the CJ dividend yield ..... The company is hated as in a previous iteration, a great many lost serious money on it ..... the jockey is right up there with Waterous, and also an HF manager; without him ... OBE would have bankrupted years ago. His firms ownership is in the 25-30% range, and greatest value will be via a merger. The downside is the price volatility, and the waiting .... hence the need to swing trade around a core position. Who you talk to matters. Those who bought last year at CAD 7.60 are raving at the current price of CAD 8.80 ... but have not experienced the downside yet. Those who bought many years ago at materially lower prices, have been through the downside, and are mostly silent; but typically hold position sizes in the 6 digits. An enterprising lad could do well, but expect a lot of haters. End of public service announcement. Good luck SD

Shush ..... We'd like the Government 'crowding out' of the private market to emerge, realisation as to the size of the new QE flood that will be required to just keep rates as they are, and recognition that the USD is going to take a material hit .... to all make the rounds. SD

Orange Boy is all about the bluff .... so call the threat over the Federal Reserve. Every barber knows that a straight blade against either the groin, or the throat, is a wonderful communication tool . SD

Don't do the research .... deserve what you get . Within the WCSB, there have been quite a few transactions that say otherwise; the Strathcona Energy acquisition MEG being a more recent example. Acquisitions by people who actually run o/g companies, not tourists merely holding paper and hoping a quick flip. SD

Sadly, my old avatar is too big a file, and the possible replacements are just not the same. No memoir writing for quite some time yet .... far too many trade secrets!, and Orange Boy is much too good a disrupter to pass up on. Way too refreshing to have estate obligations done, a brewery gig, capital/experience/expertise to do my own thing, no institutional restraints, plus a good 10 years+ of runway before the slow-go years. And as there are very few times when once/decade change routinely happens within months, this is a terrible time to waste! While I can't take it with me, I can thoroughly enjoy myself in the pillage, and give it away afterwards In between getting the bucket list items done. It will be soooo boring .... when Orange Boy eventually leaves the building. SD

Nothing wrong with pickles, and the more pickled the better! Growing up under apartheid, I was an atheist colonial border at a largely Jewish all boys school, with Zulu servants. When at home, Shona servants, and all this while living in a steadily worsening civil war, taking people every day. Before colonization, the Shona were Zulu subjects, and both tribes spoke entirely different languages. Had a great time breaking all the rules that I could think of Lot of others added to the mix during a stopover in Europe, all thoroughly enjoyable, and most all of them masters at their various crafts It's just a different approach to those around you. Some things you just have to try , other stuff .... you 've got better! SD

The podcaster is right. The reality is that while a great many can quote WEBs 'buy when there is blood in the streets', very few can actually do it. Should Iran collapse tomorrow, its oil will still flow ... but at world price, vs sanctioned price, and to mostly the same buyers. SD

One of the better uses is in reducing the value of a RRSP via a < 30 day series of RRSP/Taxable account trades. A well followed stock that suffers a material set-back (NVO, UBS, DB, etc) will often fall like a brick, experience a dead cat bounce, then drift down again .... to the enterprising lad, if it goes your way, an opportunity to double-dip on the same capital allocation A Muddy Waters suddenly trashing FFH, via a targeted short attack .... becomes your friend Thereafter, for a CAD investor, it just becomes a modelling exercise and a risk assessment. Abuse the opportunity through overuse, and the capital gains/losses will be treated as earned income .. as your investing has now become a business. One more punch card thing. SD

It is just part of the investment decision; do nothing, if you don't think asset B can do it. No different to keeping that paid off old car or refrigerator that still runs perfectly well, versus changing it out for newer tech that is both more reliable and costs less to own. After retirement, the older you get the less likely you are to do the change, as you are less likely to get the full benefit ... 'cause you might 'croak' early. SD

Canada. Gain/Loss on the sale and repurchase of the same cusip # (stock, bond, etc) within 30 days. It exists primarily to kill the practice of selling underwater positions just before year end to capture the tax loss, and a repurchase in early January to capture the rally. To demonstrate that the intent truly was a sale, you cannot buy it back for at least one month plus a day. If you do the taxman will deem the sale to have never taken place. SD

If you did this between stock X and cash, we would call it a swing trade. A pair trade if it were between stock X and stock Y. Sometimes ..... no tax at all if the sale and repurchase of stock X take place within 30 days. The realities is that all companies change over time; the BRK of today is not the BRK that you might have bought 20 years ago and simply held. Taking advantage of tidal change should not be an impediment. SD

Everyone will be different, but a few takeaways that we have found along the way ... Most of it is going to end up given away. You are really choosing to either write someone a cheque, or using your time to build something that will contribute employment ... the brewery, bakery, gardens, etc. Buy part of each kids house to remove the mortgage, will it to the grandkids. Contribute to an education fund for each kid, send them on a lifetime trip, and walk away. Anything more than that becomes toxic pretty quickly. A 1% MER is 10K/yr on 1 million ... for what? Get out of the way, set the parameters, hire an advisor to review and write a report every 2 yrs, buy the bonds and stocks directly. More effective the more you have. Everything about retirement is about drawing down; once the basics are done, pay yourself, by taking some of the remainder and building something with it. It's a whole different experience when you have the freedom, experience, and expertise to double your money as aggressively as you wish! Very rebellious ... but when you also have the risk management expertise ..... it's the target that needs to run. SD

Canada and Mexico will remain sovereigns so that they can contribute to the cost of Fortress North America. As with EU zone domination via Germany and France, North America simply turns into a NA zone dominated by the US. NATO 1.1 becomes a joint defence shared by the EU and NA zones, with the EU zone paying more of the total cost .... as the load is spread over more contributing nations, and a larger total population. Pay per head, not via ability to pay. Or Europe can do NATO 2.0, which would cost more and doesn't really work for anyone. Of course, without the very real threat of a NATO breakup, there would be no NATO 2.0 .... and widespread reinvestment in defence. Doubtful it would ever have happened without Orange Boys threats. Shit on the carpet, to get the results required SD

No way anyone does this, unless the VZ banks finance the whole thing against returned expropriated assets. Thereafter, sites are protected via either the military or a payment to a local 'roof', and a US guarantee to remove bad actors. VZ can seize the assets/debt anytime, but if there ain't no crude deliveries unless the US allows it, it's pointless; the mechanics of 'we control the oil'. SD

It is pretty clear that to the US, the best defence is a good offence. Interdict at foreign borders, not US ones; do anything in our sphere that we don't approve of, and you're erased .... no matter where in the world, and under whose protection you are under. Old school security. It is also pretty clear that to the US, both Canada and Mexico will be part of Fortress North America; operationally not much different to the EU ... but the intercontinental missiles and economic migrants stop at the Canada and Mexico borders, not the US one. It is also clear that Greenland is part of that northern defence; mechanics to be negotiated. Threats used to both materially increase the NATO defence of the north, and distract over regime changes in both the Middle East and South America. NATO 2.0, or NATO 1.1 along with a material increase in arctic defence spend; choose. Invest in repair/upgrade of the infrastructure; and VZ (under pressure) will give you back your expropriated assets, for use as collateral to finance a borrow from VZ banks. Book upfront impairment reversals, make everyone rich, and drill for the cost of interest on the loans ... the USD 50 oil. Should the assets subsequently be seized, both the VZ assets and VZ debt are written off, and you're none the worse off. Ongoing revolution, made a lot less profitable. Not the polite way of doing things, but neither is Trump; change ain't a bad thing. Interesting times. SD