SharperDingaan

'How large is optimal?' Ultimately, the purpose of all this economic activity is to benefit 'us, the people'; expressed as our standard of living. A standard that is largely controlled by a 'governance' approach that ranges from purely communist to purely capitalist. Russia and China evidence every day, that you can have oligarchs within a 'communist' framework. Canada's banking system evidences every day that you can have oligarchs within a purely capitalist activity. Co-existence is the norm, NOT the exception. Global trade (multi-nationals) optimizes mutual benefit, based solely on price; we assume lower price = higher standard of living. But sadly, not true, per the evidence. Ask any low-skilled NA minimum wage factory worker, who lost his/her job to an offshore sweatshop. Hence optimal really means that which provides the highest standard of living. If you have a large workforce, 'optimal' means that which generates the most employment (China, India, South Africa, etc) If you have a small/shrinking workforce, 'optimal' means that which most allows you to leverage your workforce (Japan, Germany, Canada, etc.) ..... And the ability to freely walk away to someplace else, if you don't like it. SD

If you are big enough to be subject to trust busting, you ARE a 'state' entity; under different economic models, it is merely more/less transparent. In the US it's just done via the use of professional lobbyists. Bribe as the carrot, threaten to walk as the stick, and remind that it takes money to get re-elected. Smart. Oil vs telecom/broadband are just different models. Telecom/broadband is a local utility to the ares within its reach, and often viewed as a basic human 'right' in many places. As with all utilities, it's better if there is only one monopoly provider, public/private ownership depends on the nation. Refined fuel is a global, process driven commodity. Price is the same for everyone at the refiners gate, and depends primarily on global/regional demand. In-country price depends primary on transport/local infrastructure, plus whatever tax a local authority chooses to impose. Don't take the fuel and it just goes somewhere else, and lowers the price for everyone else (more supply, same demand). Investment wise, there are lots of opportunities .... But you must be clear on the business models driving the sector, how/why it makes money, and where it is vulnerable to change. Thereafter, it becomes purely a tactical application. SD

My post was just recognition that the US has much more in systematic institutional 'checks and balances'. For the most part, no sole institution is allowed to have all the power - baring rare exceptions (Fed Reserve). In-fighting, and competition, used as a tool to keep the outcome reasonably fair. The problem with a multi-national (oil, tech, drugs, ag, etc.) is that they are multi-national. Threaten a US tech giant, and it just moves its HQ elsewhere - becoming a French, German, or even a Canadian multi-national. Cutting off the US market in retaliation (& creating a domestic rival), is not a solution either; the babe either gets strangled in the crib , or just bought out (5-10 yrs later), when everyone is friends again. No effective control. Hence think of trust-busting as little more than a centralized to decentralized re-organization, and done for petty much the same reasons. SD

Just to add some twists ;) We (the people) do the trust busting - so that we control the beast, and the beast doesn't control us. Even friends in low places recognize that it's a really bad idea to have a single all-powerful god-father. Power is shared for a reason, it's a lot healthier for all involved, and time at the top (for all) is a limited term engagement. When you're the biggest, and there are no competitors - it's just smart business to routinely extort. Lots of ways by which to do this, but ultimately if I screw up - you the people bail me out, and keep both your ongoing employment and way of life. Not much different to the pusher, withholding from the addicted, to get what he/she wants. Europe. The US has literally distrusted size since Day-1 of the constitution. Much closer to those from low places, much healthier as a result, and much more robust. However, the main difference is resolution via greed and glory, versus simply sleeping with the fishes. And notably, the US approach has a lot of similarities to dictatorships - so Trumps 'choice of buds' is hardly surprising! SD

Other than a periodic annual 'visit' we aren't in FFH anymore. Long time ago, I did a series of rolling 10-yr tests assuming a purchase the day before ex-date; and a resale at 2 weeks, 1, 2 months later - or 2 weeks after the Q4, Q1 earnings releases. Versus a simple full-yr calendar hold. Ultimately the conclusion was that you had to be very specific on what you were trying to capture, and adjust your holding period accordingly. IE: Were you trying to capture dividend effect?, yr-end reporting effect? seasonality effect?, hurricane effect? and was FFH one of the better vehicles by which to do that? SD

There's nothing wrong with just keeping it very simple, and simply buying/selling across the ex-dividend date. Buy a day before the ex-date, take the USD 10 dividend, sit in the thing for a short period until the price recovers, and exit. Done and dusted by the end of January. SD

In Taleb speak - Climate Change is the same as playing Russian Roulette. Sure, we can spin the chambers and maybe nothing happens, but if we're wrong ...... Collectively, the smart thing - is not to play. But individually - it's an asymmetric pay-off. We put up our ante, bet on the players demise, and collect at 'X':1 if it's our lucky day. The book-maker hopes for large crowds, a 'rake' on every bet, a string of 'lucky' players, and a large supply. The player hopes for an empty chamber, and a large enough pay-out to grub stake a better life elsewhere. The better hopes that payoffs just exceed the nights cumulative ante. The undertaker hopes for a good supply. In the climate change world .... The antes are those individual investments in various 'clean' technologies. The book-makers are the various global markets for carbon/pollution trading. The players are the globes polluters (big oil, big mining, big agriculture, big drug, etc). The betters are you and I, moving to higher ground and cleaner water/air as opportunity permits. The undertaker is your local government/regulator, seeking votes for re-election. SD

The preferred solution for Norway's sovereigns fund is actually a greater weight to Asia (China); primarily at the expense of the US weighting. The problem is that China is communist, and property rights (share ownership) are 'discretionary'; all that Norway can really do is look to the 'other' Asian markets, and a very few 'reliable' chinese companies trading in the ADR market. Not fashionable today, but at one time there was an argument that 'multi-nationals' were broadly the equivalent of sovereigns for asset allocation purposes; they were just a different 'type' of sovereign. We laugh today, but were a company to be a dominant player in the creation/maintenance of the blockchain digital global ledger, few would dispute that they were not essentially a digital sovereign. And worthy of a portion of the sovereign asset allocation. Were that digital sovereign also maintaining blockchain global ledgers on 'pollution' (carbon trading, etc.) it would also be very hard to argue against - and particularly in a more environmentally conscious country such as Norway. And especially difficult, if these 'stateless' companies also reported/paid tax to a central 'global' authority/regulator, versus a purely national one. Disruption. SD

No polls, there's nothing to report, and nothing to sensationalise to sell air-time, ad-space, or drive up click count (to raise the cost of that media time-slot). Its all about the money - content is just the days toilet paper. The big event remains a year away; there will be material change between now and then, and even if Warren wins the democratic ticket - the democrats still have to win the election. With so many variables changing, and for so long; it's pretty hard to have any confidence in today's prediction holding up until voting day - yet we want to trade on it? We're not 'investing', we're speculating, and the bet is really just a ticket at the betting shop. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't. Agreed, there's nothing wrong in idle speculation. But at least recognize that this far out from the main event; 'political', & 'market', speculation are just not the same thing. I'm hoping for a better pay-off on Trumps impeachment - gotta pay for that rope! SD

Polls are political creations. Phrase the question, and target specific 'markets', to get the result you want. Betting shop odds are just supply/demand, balanced net of handicapping. Real transactions, harder to manipulate, and mostly live time. They are not the same things. To speculate, you need a hypothesis ... 'Trump will leave office early' The 'something' to speculate on; be it occurrence, time frame, impact of change, trade strategy/how-to, etc. No hypothesis - and you've just a political discussion trying to look like something else. SD

This is a very 'amusing' discussion ... According to odds.watch, Warren has a 19% chance of winning the 2020 Presidential Election. And is down 10 points in < 1 month! Even 'Trump will leave office early', clocks in with higher odds - 21% as at current time. https://odds.watch/elizabeth-warren-2020 Of course, no one wants to believe a betting shop's odds .... Yet the 'investment's' results - will be based on potential gain/loss x the prob. of occurrence (betting shop odds) I like the 'Trump will be impeached' at 74%, and rising ;D SD

Most duopolies will have at least one party, competing on economies of scale. The party has to essentially be the industry 'standard' setter, and positioned to sell large quantities of 'standard' product; making it very fragile to disruption. The bigger the party, the more moving parts, the harder it is to turn the ship, and the more opportunity for error. And just to maintain the current share price - the market expects perfect execution, all the time. Of course, .... sh1te happens, and routinely. :D Suggesting that the smarter strategy may well be to just bet on routine failures, swing trade the hits and misses over time, and simply reinvest the gains in a progressively bigger position. Particularly if the party is also a dividend payer, as it often the case. SD

Porter strategies. SD

Agreed, ’immutable’ just means unchanging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object To the coder, coding in Python, this is just an object (stored information) that cannot be changed – it has nothing to do with whether that object is ‘complete’ or not. The widespread view of the ‘tech’ silo. To the business (user), paying the coder; ‘immutable’ means the record is reliable, and holds ‘no surprises’. The widespread view of the ‘business’ silo; is that if a record is ‘incomplete’, it is unreliable, and impaired. Don’t care why. The technology removes the intermediaries, places reliance on the coding, and enables automation via the use of smart contracts. In a business, that’s an annual saving of tens of millions, and removes the bulk of the time-tested and well proven human external/internal control apparatus. It also removes the bulk of the sales staff, and the office space currently housing all these people. Fortunately there are simple, practical solutions, to the incomplete record problem. The mining fee is a transaction cost; hence the more a Bitcoin costs, the more it costs to transact. But like any other business, Bitcoin has to compete against other non-bank payment systems (Hawala, Chiti, Casino's, etc); charge too much, nobody uses Bitcoin (and the higher that fee, the more likely that is to occur.) Some calculate that this transaction cost is extremely high; others claim it is zero - as until we hit the token cap, the 'system' pays, and not the transactors. My own view is that for most users of Bitcoin, transaction cost is irrelevant (not price sensitive). I also think that it is not cheap, and that ultimately, price will be used to 'throttle' processing speed (higher speed via fewer, high-value transactions, vs many low-value transactions). Friends in low prices would start at a transaction cost of $1000+ transaction, in return for its 'unique' benefits. Inclined to agree with them. SD

The number is arbitrary. The important part is that there is a limit, it isn't important what the limit is. No one will ever know how many bitcoin are lost forever, but everyone will always know the max amount possible to exist. That was the intent and it is not impaired in any way. The important part is that there is a MAXIMUM 21M token, and that it CANNOT increase. The 21M cap means no inflation, and a minimum price supported by utility - as when no new coin are being issued; to pay the miner you must either already have the coin, or buy it from someone else. With < 21M token available for circulation (less supply), this minimum price will be higher than the designers intended it to be (impairment). Alternatively, if additional token are issued to compensate for those 'lost' ; the change evidences that 21M is not a hard cap, and destroys the no inflation feature. Impairment. Bitcoin was designed as a trustless payment system, and reflects the cyberpunk libertarian ethos of its founders - all good. The problem is that the ultimate 'practical' libertarians are the criminal element!; hence the historic widespread 'Silk Road' involvement, and the more 'practical' security surrounding Bitcoin. Combine Bitcoin, with Chicago Bitcoin Futures and Options, and you literally get perhaps the 'safest' currency on the planet - provided the 21M cap doesn't change (preventing inflation) ;) There are multiple non-banking payment systems in the world. Most would expect market forces to drive consolidation into Bitcoin. There are also multiple banking payment systems, and most would expect market forces to ultimately drive consolidation into a handful of central bank coin used for global settlement. Bitcoin vs Central Bank, and very Yin/Yang. The payment system (Bitcoin), and its record (Block-Chain), are not the same thing. Smart-Contracts are just an application, running off the Block-Chain record; that allow us to automate transactions (payments). Allowing the automation of the factory, to be brought to the services industries. Disruptive change. Limitations in the block-chain record (incomplete history) are impairments that have to be adjusted for. Opening all kinds of practical solutions. SD

Bitcoin stops creating new token at 21M. When it gets to 21M there will be a lot less in circulation than the designers intended. Impairment. SD

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins? No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record. The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin. SD

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day. The block chain record is NOT real ..... Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the property block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M. The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value. The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete! ..... I have friends in low places ;) SD

There are 2 types of crypto that post to the digital ledger. Public bitcoin protocol using miners, and private networks using agreed protocol. Central bank payment systems run on private networks, resulting in high-capacity, and high-speed processing, enabling everyday payments. Bitcoin protocol is for low capacity, high-security, slow processing. Different markets and applications; and there’s a place for both. But if you just want to buy a coffee, you are not using Bitcoin to do it - it just takes too long to process the payment! SD

Excuse me but I'm not a money launderer and I don't want central banks to exist much less be involved in things. Central banks are anti free-market by definition. I'll make an exception for the handful of purely libertarians :) But I'm still only making/receiving payments over a central bank rail ... and Bitcoin, only when I wish to remain entirely private. Ying/Yang remain alive and well! SD

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals. Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent. Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds .... or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark? ... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency. The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet. Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack. SD

Ultimately it is cost versus benefit. 'Contain' the gaming to < 5% of the total population, and don't advertise. When someone 'doesn't play nice', make an example that no one can 'mis-understand'. Mafiosi 'protect' the Vatican for a reason. It is a very old time-worn approach, and has proven effective across the globe, and in multiple cultures. SD

Do any kind of 'real' research on how blockchain works, and it's pretty obvious why Libra is meeting resistance. It's also clear why almost all the other significant social media platforms are NOT pursing digital currency. If you don't 'get' why the technology is so game changing, why it is materially more valuable to a China or Russia, and who the natural markets are for the various approaches; you need to make some decisions. Top of the list should be flying somewhere, and paying up for an advanced course in the subject. You will be dead before this technology becomes 'everyday'. All you can do is consider the potential application, and buy the strongest players in the sectors likely to benefit. Hope for a global meltdown, buy the dividend payers as cheaply as possible - and toss them in the sock draw for 10+years. SD

Do the same thing with actual sales to/from the market, and there is no issue. The taxable account simply sells into the market in the morning, and the TFSA buys out of the market (32 days later) in the afternoon. Different dates, different trades, different prices, different 2nd parties, >31 days elapsed, same overall effect. Point is, don't poke the bear. SD

Fully agree that carbon credits have to apply to imports as well. Carbon credits are just in their early stages ... and there are a whole lot of premiers to still persuade; evolution is inevitable. In the 'east'; it'll be the start of the shut-down and replacement of gasoline for electric car plants - in 5-8 years, or less. The talk will stop when the ASX is Canada's undisputed carbon trading market, it's a thriving business,...... and Calgary is the centre of the universe! SD