SharperDingaan

Kids don't come with a 'user' manual; neither do spouse. Even a smartphone comes with better instructions! Mom gives you life, Dad gives you independence. Mom doesn't want her 'investment' getting hurt. Dads view? Martha, we need to make another one - this one's a dud! All one need do is expose kids to life, full throtle, and get out of the way. They will find their own level. Most kids are simply waiting for something to happen, and devices are just something to kill the time. You're competing against the 'exciting' drug dealer; do nothing - and the dealer wins. Make the drug 'life itself', and the dealer's dead in the water. Mom/Dad/Gran/Grandpa give you 'life guidance' Of course they are 'out of touch!'; mom/dad were 'you' 25-30 years ago, and for many it's mom OR dad ONLY. Their 'instruction book' isn't nicely 'structured' either! The biggest limitation of university undergraduates, upon graduation, is poor 'life guidance'. YOU have maybe 5 years of 'freedom' until kids and significant other start arriving; and don't get it back until retirement. So plan it. YOU will have at least 3-4 careers, and will be back at school at least 2-3 times more. So use it. YOU make your life decisions, not someone else! So experience it. Occassionally I'm asked to make graduation 'addresses' ... I suggest deceiding on what you like, and simply doing it. If you like blue-eyed blondes, then you really need to go live in Scandanavia where the WHOLE PLACE is blue-eyed blondes! Pick the age, the weight, the size; settle down with one to learn the language, and just let life happen. A job is just a job; experience is something else! .... kind of like Charlie Munger meets Keith Richards. SD

Two brief adds to this, before moving on. The best solution for everyone is a self-regulated industry, with the lightest 'regulatory touch' possible. We already have something like this in Canada that works very well - the Canadian Banking Industry. Replace 'bank act' with a 'resource act', 'bank charter' with 'resource permit', and 'law' with 'OSFI Guideline'. Free to compete as you wish within the Guidelines, blunt political discussion behind closed doors, and industry decisions - made by industry. Pipelines are really national assets, and would be better served; were they built by Canada, and leased back to industry. Nationalized rights of way and construction to get it done, industry to operate it, and 'over-ride' control if the lessee fails to deliver. In rail use, this would include double/triple tracking portions of the east-west rail tracks, engines and crews; leasing them back, and ending congestion. Certainty, and the end of fiefdoms ransoming citizens. Obviously not popular, but if you want to make 'real' change ...... SD

Agreed the OWA has been the long-standing INDUSTRY response to well abandonment. But it has always functioned as an after-the-fact PR salve. Throw in a few bucks to demonstrate we're attempting to clean up the mess, in return for letting us continue. No real before-the-fact attempt to actually fix the problem. Now the emphasis is before-the-fact, and those responsible for a large part of it, being made to pay for it. Yes it wil making starting up harder, and pull the plug on failing firms earlier than might otherwise have occurred; but that's not a bad-thing. Making it harder to abuse, and doing so PRO-ACTIVELY, is in everybody's long term interests. We're done with hostaging employees. Ultimately it's really a muscular behind the barn 're-adjustment'. Elder siblings informing/enforcing the 'new order' on the younger 'hard of hearing', in partial recompense for having to bear the majority of the current shut-in. Hard to argue against. Canadian o/g has the OWA, Canadian auto-insurance has the Facility Association, but a great many other industries have nothing. While being more responsive than others is great PR, when the bar is so low ... the industry is just evidencing that it's a salve. No real intent to change. If the industry really wants to move forward, it has to clean up its act. If you keep drawing 'roughing' penalties, eventually you just get thrown out of the game. SD

Everyone is free to buy their raw materials elsewhere, but can only do so as long as 'elsewhere' has the excess capacity. 'Elsewhere' also has to have the deposits that can be produced for less than it would cost to buy Canadian, AND the same (or lower) political/regulatory risk. Tar Sands, Hydro, etc remains very attactive. The 'open for business' argument thinks it OK to rape and pillage - so long as you create jobs. The arseholes and abuses that this generates, are just another cost of doing business; and if it damages the environment, who really gives a sh1t - as everyone else is doing it. If we don't do it, somebody elsewhere will, & we're just unemployed. We used to think that drunk driving, 2nd hand smoke, wife beating, and suppressing women was 'OK' as well. And in the early 2000's we also thought predatory mortgage lending was OK - right before it blew up the financial system; oops! Like it or not we've moved on, we don't have to do something just because everyone else is, and 'rape and pillage' is just not acceptable any more. So next time you meet a politician, put him/her on the spot, and see how well 'they' can lie out of both sides of their mouth! SD

Very deep ruling by the Supreme Court Of Canada, on the ranking of environmental responsibilities in a bankruptcy. Basically, the cost of environmental clean-up ranks AHEAD of ALL other claims (including secured debt), AS WELL AS legal/adviser fees involved in the wind-up. And if asset sale proceeds are inadequate to fund the cost of the clean-up - the INDUSTRY is on the hook for the difference. In effect, BY LAW, the first tranche of a company environmental clean-up is self-funded by the company, the second tranche is self funded by industry, and only the remainder is covered by you and I - the people. https://calgaryherald.com/commodities/energy/bankruptcy-is-not-a-license-to-ignore-rules-top-court-rules-old-wells-clean-up-comes-first-in-landmark-case/wcm/dad33064-ec42-421e-b019-04f5ac2abf29 Any kind of extractive industry (o/g, mining, forestry, fishing, etc), any kind of utility supplying an output at < full cost (not charging for polllution from nukes, CO2 from coal/gas power, potential catastrophic failure [Fukashima, PG&E], etc), and any kind of industry impairing the environment (cement manufacture, plastic container polution, etc.) are now explicitly (versus previously implicitly) liable. Pricing now includes full costing, it is a collective effort, and it finally pays to reduce pollution at source. Very, very smart. For the Alberta Tarsands, it would essentially require, by law, ALL of Canada to collectively pay full cost for o/g, and in pollution controls to reduce that cost. Provinces no longer able to refuse transit, if it reduces the unit costs of o/g for all Canadians - either via higher throughputs, or higher prices for non Canadians. Today's roadblocks, suddenly collapse. The new world - that we have all been waiting for. We live in interesting times. SD

Whatever scenario going forward, a key variable will be the estimation and allocation of wildfire costs (prevention, mitigation and damage liabilities). While there is a clear increasing trend in the last 20 to 30 years and while expectations of continuation of this trend in the near future is reasonable, it appears that the costs attributed to PG&E need to be discounted and whether continuing as oldco or newco, it is reasonable to expect that relevant players (federal, state (definition of risk zones, improved forest risk management), local authorities (zoning etc) and the regulator (CPUC vs PG&E, property insurance etc)) will coordinate an improved plan and determine a more appropriate allocation procedure. Interesting to note also that taking the recent trend (that has appeared since the 70's) within a larger perspective shows that there was larger acreage burned of US forest lands earlier in the 20th century followed by a relatively quiet period and some suggest that the relatively quiet period was due to improved but non-specific suppression efforts, suggesting also that what we see now (because of fire consequences easing conditions) is a return of the pendulum around a rising trend, pretty much like the stock market at times. You might want to keep in mind what happens when there is a big fire. The blaze is bigger, hotter, & more intense, because it fed on years worth of dry dead wood and debris. The resultant intensity created fire venturi, that pulled fresh air into the base of the fire, drove up temperature, and turned everything into ash (versus charred wood). There isn't going to be another fire in the same area, until there's something to burn again. Next season there's another fire, but in a different place. The traditional solution has been to deliberatly fire an area every few years, to remove the fuel accumulation. Frequent, smaller, and cooler fires that more resemble the natural cycle. But hard to do in a city environment. Of course, the alternative is to either pay a high price for the super-cat insurance, OR deliberately fire the area every few years , in return for a lower premium - AFTER the big fire has been through. Hence, maybe going through the insurance route, is perhaps the lower risk route by which to approach this? SD

Per a very funny story from the book 'Jean Cretien, My Stories, My Times' The 1995 referendum on Quebec seperation was a very close thing, in part because Quebecers are prone to 'voting with their heart', over 'voting with their head'. Hence a good orator, of the people, speaking to the people - will often carry the day. At the time, Quebec opinion polls were consistently fluctuating around the 50% mark on a weekly basis, and there was a very real risk that Canada would seperate. To get away from the paranoia, a prominent federalist politician in the Quebec Eastern Townships, would venture into his basement to consult with Quebecs newest citizens; a litter of 9 kittens that the family cat had just delivered. Being a good politician, he'd ask these new citizens if they thought that Quebec should seperate, and they'd all said 'Yes'. Depressed, he'd trudge back upstairs, tell his 'people', and they would fight the good fight for another week. A month later, following his weekly 'consultation', he re-appeared at the top of the basement stairs, and announced that the consensus was now a 'No'. His 'people', were of course estatic!, and asked 'what had changed'. The reply was, 'their eyes had opened'. Ultimately Quebec chose to stay in Canada with a a vote of 50.85%. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995 SD

We're essentially talking a 'triage' approach. Quick look to determine which are probably going to live, & require the least work. Select to maintain diversification. Problem is ... what if todays casualties are in worse shape that yesterdays? You also need a garbage filter. SD

Predicting the direction of a sub-index is a lot less work, easier, and more reliable; than predicting the direction of an individual security. Hence for most 'value' investors, 'index' investing will generate the better return/hour spent, and you spend your tiime on capital allocation versus stock picking. However, people being people, seek 'confirmation' from others; and people brag of their stock 'winners' at parties - not their capital allocation. Hence 'value investors' typically stock pick, in large part, to rank well in a popularity contest. Something very far away from the commonly accepted definition of a 'sunk' cost. SD

This. If there is more of this coming, the Government has to legislate reasonably and responsibly or the whole thing fails. I know PG&E has demonstrable failings and I believe the shareholders will be punished at least a little, but this is a new paradigm to be regulated / legislated for. The structure already exists and does not require legislation. 1) Assets sold to a new entity. New entity supplies existing customers. Business continues as normal. 2) Old entity manages the liabilities in a wind-up. 3) Public covers anything in excess (bonds & equity at zero) If you believe the fire liability is less than PG&E's total current debt and equity, there's something left over for you. If you think the public 'is going to pay', then all existing debt and equity must be zero. SD

Make a company liable no matter what, and you place the inherent 'moral hazard' of the business on the board of that company. The vast bulk of everyday mishaps (spills, leaks, pollution, etc.) can be well handled within the arrangement, there is a single point of responsibility and governance (the board), and 'board' insurance is both common and wide-spread. What remains is 'cat' risk, and its severity is measured in 'degrees' of extreme. Ultimately its covered through a mix of super-cat and self-insurance that you and I pay for, as and when it occurrs. If we did not do that, neither of us could afford the full cost of the electricity that the facility generates. The existing entity turns into a 'zombie', and debate as to 'what should be done' - goes on for literally years. The fundamental problem is that energy is not sold on the basis of full cost, it is sold on the basis of marginal cost, and we pay for the mismatch through volatility. The envirionmentalist arguing that cost should include environmental impairment (pollution, warming, health, etc.), and the producer arguing that it's just the cost of production. Point is, there is going to be more of this over time ... PG&E is unlikely to be an isolated incident. SD

A little research goes a long way ... Natural disaster is part of the everyday risk of operating an electric generation facility, and when something happens; the facility does not get to 'cap', or 'escape' its obligations. We just don't want to recognize that facilities self-insure against their total capital, plus any relevant insurance that they may have purchased. If the worst happens (very remote chance), the facility burns through its proceeds - and if it still isn't enough, the public is on the hook for the difference. Remember Fukashima? 7 years later Japan/TEPCO is still stuck with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680175363/executives-in-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-deserve-5-year-prison-terms-prosecutors The US West Coast lies on a well-known fault line, and most 'seismic science' suggests that an event is overdue. Most would expect that there is going to be more of this, it will occurr with increasing frequency, and that it is going to create a hard market for all west coast 'global warming','earthquake', and 'seismic' insurance. And the public sector will willingly spread the risk, through wide-spread purchase of super-cat insurance. And what do super-cat insurers do when the worst happens? - they bankrupt, pay out cents on every dollar of their obligations, and report great earnings up until the worst happens, if it ever happens. Appear to look remarkably similar to PG&E! What's the better investment? Getting involved with the bankruptcy, or getting involved with the insurers providing the insurance? Different strokes. SD

The best 'investment' one can make is in 'knowing' oneself. Going forward I see no reason why you shouldn't do well, and with a lot less angst that is currently the case. To enjoy a worthwhile retirement, one has to 'invest' in it over ones working lifetime. Invest does not ‘just’ mean the size of a bank account; it also means are your debts paid off? (mortgage, car, others, etc.), family, reinvention (one isn't the same person at 65, that they were at 45), and having something to 'retire' to? (bucket list, new venture, new direction, etc.). Most people are not very good at it. Most people also think only of the ‘S&P500’, ‘Dow Jones’, 'TSX', etc. when they hear ‘indexing’, and stop. Of course, what is meant, is the multitude of instruments that are indexes on ‘sub-components’ of the bigger S&P, Dow Jones, TSX, etc. If you think oil/gas will become a good space, buy an oil/gas index versus individual oil/gas shares, and sleep peacefully. ALLOCATE/RE-ALLOCATE capital every 6-12 months to where the puck is going (not where it is today), choose the index funds with the lowest fees, and get out of your own way. Good luck! SD

Or ... the assets are just bought out of bankruptcy, by somebody else (& another entity), at cents on the dollar. All existing capital of PG&E used to cover existing (& future) claims; and the good people of California continue to receive their electricity, & pay their bills, without interuption. Still feel like fishing in the toilet? SD

In any bankruptcy, it's pragmatic to separate the physical from the financial. Electricity still has to be delivered, the infrastructure remains in place, it's a rate regulated business, and customers have few practical alternatives. It's really just who customers will pay their bills to going forward, and when. It is of course a human-interest 'story', and there will be much media reporting of the disruption, but it's highly unlikely that thousands of PG&E employees and contractors are going to be permanently out of a job. The lawyers/bankers will do their thing, the assets/liabilities will move to 'new' legal entitities, and there will be some closed door state/federal 'backstop agreements'; but it will not remove the initial 'fear' and 'uncertainty' scepticism - only success delivered over time will. But to raise the requisite capital in this environment, the new entities are going to have to either pay up, or sell paper at a deeper discount. Don't fish in the toilet, look at the subsequent 'new' offerings instead. Let the media do its thing, and the more negative the sentiment the better ;) SD

For most people, buying individual stocks/bonds is a dumb idea. They know that it is well outside their 'wheelhouse', they will be lambs to slaughter, and that they will almost certainly lose. Hence their money goes into paying off their mortgage, and then primarily 'toys' - that they can sell later if they get into trouble. At least 'get' something for your money, versus just piss it away. 'Real Estate', around the world, has long been a subsitute for a pension plan. Look around the ethnic neighbourhoods in your community, who owns the real-estate?, and why? When you're old the rents are your monthly pension, and if you suddenly need cash you simply re-mortgage a property. But it's a step 'up', and a different mindset. Most retail investors are really 'gambling', buying 'story/momentum' stocks to sell on at a higher price - to a 'patsy'. Of course, the 'patsy' is never them - and those times when it is 'them'; everything else is blamed, but them. It's industry 'XYZ' that is a dog, dead-money, too hard, a rip-off, etc ..... If you do something materially different to 'the crowd' you're the 'tall poppy'; and 'tall poppies' get cut down - because they disturb the social order. 'You're not one of us', 'you think you're better than us', you're socially isolated ... and pressured to conform, because your ability to 'question', and act on it, have made you dangerous. Make a lot of money when everyone around you is losing theirs .. and you will feel 'pressure' - especially if you made the wrong people, 'look stupid' ;) There's an old adage that wealth often goes from rags to rags in 3 generations. The more you can think for your self, and act on it, the closer you are to the 1st generation versus the 3rd. The more of a 'bastard' you are, the bigger the stash. SD

Not to be too specific ..... The hash rate will not change, but the complexity of the hash will skyrocket. And if your supercomputer now wins every hash (as only your CPU has the speed to do these complex calculations, and still be 'first') ... do you not now effectively have 100% control over the mining process? And does it not essentially enable the same outcome as a 51% attack? A 'consortium' invests 100M in a attack on BTC. It also sells a collective 1B+ nominal of BTC futures & options on the Chicago exchanges today, & puts up an average 10% margin. Total investment of 200M. A week from now the attack launches; panic prevails, BTC falls 50%, & the 'consortium' buys back the futures at a 500M+ profit. Net gain of 300M. And it WILL be a consortium, that reflects the heirarchy of the criminal establishment. If it doesn't, the perpetrators very rapidly sleep with the fishes. SD

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it. They do exist, but are tightly controlled. Not so much re the financial. All you need is a small change leveraged many times. Bitcoin is the only coin with both US futures and options contracts they allow a great deal of leverage, AND where you can be reasonably sure of collecting on your gains. Potentially a very great deal of money, were you so inclined. SD

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this, as a non-expert on this stuff it seems like a big deal, are the other cryptos at risk for this? Every distributed ledger token/coin that uses Bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to a 51% attack. The attack on Etherum has just proved that it can be done, and that if you don't pay the new 'fee' you are about to be asked for, it will also happen to you. If anyone sells any quantity of DL token in 'reaction', the sell-off may be irreversable; so sit quiet, don't do anything stupid, & pay up. Then along came a regulated exchange in Bitcoin options and futures ....... ;) Great opportunity, but a sh1tty way by which to make a buck. SD

'Bad' businesses are often pretty good businesses ... that are just badly executed. Example: 'Retail' is a terrible business? When did 'selling' suddenly become not very profitable? Next to the top-4 in most companies, who makes the most money in the company - the top salesperson! And that is pretty much true in every nation, and every industry. Why? Simply because the selling 'agent' carries no inventory, has no obsolence cost, can 'vote' with their feet, and does not have to put up infrastructure, the 'principal' does. And that principal is very happy to pay substantially more for any rainmaking (alpha from new clients) that 'agent' may bring. Hence the 'agent' who is very good at selling (their 'craft'), will enjoy a very comfortable life. 'Seling' is clearly a profitable activity. Maybe the real problem of 'retail' is that a great many 'retail' organizations really shouldn't be selling for themselves, but rather for someone else. Managements 'playing' at being 'principal', when they should really be doing what they do best - 'selling' through the traditional pyramidal incentive structure. The investors choice is just whether it's worth the wait. SD

We might want to keep in mind that leverage isn't mentioned (margin, option), and the very high likelihood that NOT everybody is calculating return the same way (ie: other than TWR). To a novice, return is just ((end of year value (ie: $200) divided by start of year value (ie: $100)) - 1) x 100 In this example: (200/100 - 1) x 100 = 100%. Looks impressive, but might not be. If the novice just contributed $90 of new funds at the end of the year, the actual return is of course a very different number. Also keep in mind that for many, voluntary posts merely serve as a learning vehicle. There is no intent to brag about 'size'. Obviously if you do well 'good on you', but that's about it. SD

-33% TWR, all unrealized. We are very concentrated, the portfolio is materially 'house money' funded, and we reduced cash in favour of additional equity over Q4. Large YoY change is inherent to our style, why we focus on 'outlay' versus return, and why we systematically take $ off the table when we 'win'. The majority of the portfolio is in o/g and commodities, and we will not need the money for many years yet. 'House money' means a position funded from cummulative position-to-date profit in the position; we have recovered our capital 'outlay', put it back into T-Bills/Canada's, and left our profit in shares at their average cost of purchase. We are not OPM, and hold all the professional designations that you might expect of an institutional portfolio manager. We suck at trading, but suck less than -33% per round-trip. Going forward we will trade the opportunities presented. Q4 additions are all up significantly since purchase. SD

I don't do your due diligence for you. I just rattle cages, to make the money flow ;D

Illustrative of what we can perhaps expect .... https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1OY0D3-OCATP “Yes, I have. And I can do it if I want,” Trump said. “We can call a national emergency because of the security of our country ... I may do it. But we can call a national emergency and build it very quickly.” Emergency powers have been invoked by previous U.S. presidents during times of war. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats had told Trump during the meeting to end the shutdown. “He resisted,” Schumer said. “In fact, he said he’d keep the government closed for a very long period of time, months or even years.” The source also said Trump brought up recent impeachment threats during those remarks, arguing that he had notched a strong performance as president and should not be a target for impeachment. The president later told reporters that Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, said Democrats were not looking to impeach him. So ... we have a president who thinks he is in a 'war'; and is of the view that it's OK to 'fratenize' with the criminal element - so long as it results in ongoing 'strong performance'. And who apparently can no longer distinguish over the 'war' he is in over potential impeachment - and the USA which is currently not 'at war' with anybody. Escalating ongoing disruption ... And the investment opportunity? .... Options on the equipment and material suppliers that would be used to build 'the wall', and the closer their geography to the border - the better (bulk building material is heavy to move). As long as POTUS doesn't sprain his 'tweat' fingers, we should all be deep in the money! SD

Trade volatilty. Sell into the immediate story, and buy back 1-2 months later. If the financial press is positive (trend in prices, growth, etc.) sell down; and buy back when the first 'negative' appears - same as the market maker. Trump is just the loudest reliably 'disuptive' voice creating that volatility. Rattle Trumps base, and sell into the resultant xenophobia. Rinse and repeat ;) SD