SharperDingaan

Couple of add ons ... Almost every investment decision we make, has a political element to it. On any given day elected representatives can change the business/regulatory environment we're investing in, and the amount of tax we will pay if we're correct. It cannot be 'sterilized', and kept is a bottle; we learn how to live with it. An ignore button is a reasonable saw-off, but it's not perfect - nothing is. The alternative is a paid membership 'no-politics' board; and COBF suddenly becomes a 'private' club, no different to the thousands of other private clubs out there - and an echo chamber. It's much more valuable, when there's blunt but polite (Canadian board) discussion, from as many smelly armpits and feet as possible! Different POV. SD

A few things to add to the great advice given. 90% to value funds, 10% to you to invest. But .. invest that 10% in the industry you work in. You have experience in the industry, you know how it works, and your 100 hours 'researching'- will help in BOTH your 'investing' AND your day job. You are developing 'circle of competence', & right now - you know very little. It's why the 90% is in value funds. 2nd ANNUAL income, at least equal to the 10% you're investing. If you screw up (& you will), you recover your loss within a year. If you just tread water, you've doubled your 10% capital allocation. You are learning risk management, and it will allow you to remain mentally supple when the investment is not going your way. Accumulate in tax free, tax deferred accounts; then use the proceeds for a house down-payment. Your first two 'investments' should be securing the roof over your head, and finding your lifetime partner. Your 'portfolio' is your family; thereafter, 'investing' is just how you manage the family cheque-book/net worth. Net-worth isn't just financial. Something that a great many people totally miss. Good luck! SD

Keep in mind that opportunity costs are not cash costs. The RRSP mortgages are also unique. The CRA gave you a tax refund when you put the money into the RRSP, it's an interest free loan from yourself (the RRSP) to yourself (as borrower), and if you dont repay - the non repayment is treated as a taxable withdrawal from your RRSP. Of course, as a 1st time house buyer this should be part of your due-diligence. But how many 1st time buyers do you know, that actually did it? SD

That doesn't say what you said. It only says that under 120k household income you have access to the gov't taking a 5 or 10% equity stake in your house. Doesn't say anything about getting "118K (25%) of a 480K house, at 0% financing" like you wrote. Excuse me, .... you need to learn how to read. It was very clearly disclosed. 118K (25%) of a 480K house, at 0% financing - 70K (35K each x 2) of interest free financing from their RRSP - 48K (10% partiicipation loan) of interest free financing from CMHC Have a good day. SD

Introducing the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive https://www.budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/chap-01-en.html Few things to add to this. The private mortgage will have been stress tested at 200-300bp above the current floating rate, and will typically INCLUDE the favourable impact of NOT paying back your RRSP mortgage. The bank WANTS to lend you the money. So if you can't pass the stess test, despite the RRSP mortgage, AND minimal principal repayment every month; you must be a truly sh1te credit. It would be better for everyone if you weren't in the market at all, and without the bank mortgage you will not be; No means no, not 'maybe'. If you really want a house - look at something cheaper. You can have a down-payment as low as 5%; if you can afford it. But this is Canada, not the US, & it's a recourse mortgage; if there's a shortfall on foreclosure you're on the hook for it. Don't like it, don't buy here, it's that simple. The folks whining, are those who have been turned away by the banks (the sh1te credits); and those whose living depends upon a robust real-estate market (agents, house stagers, marketers, sched B & C banks, pawn brokers, etc). All vested interests, complaining because Daddy wouldn't give the real-estate gamblers what they wanted .... bwaaaaah! Yet when you look at the government incentive programs already in place .... It's pretty hard to argue that for a 1st time buyer, they are not already very generous. Just a different POV SD

Read the CMHC material for definition of gross income. You want to play, this is what it is; they could care less if you agree or not. Don't like it, go somewhere else. You don't have the money (TFSA's, RRSP's) you cant buy a 480K house; that simple. No pay, no play, get over it. Rent, or buy someplace else, where you CAN actually afford it. And the balances in those TFSA's/RRSP's? You had the same opportunities as every other Canadian; how much you saved, for how long, and keeping it saved, is entirely to you. Yes it isn't easy, but many others before you have done it, and the result reflects your own efforts. Blunt actuals, not shoulda's, woulda's, coulda's, etc. And rude! Not what the real-estate market wants the punters to hear SD

Complete insanity and totally irresponsible IMO. Pretty bonkers. Clearly one of those desperate electoral moves. I don't know. What's interesting about the loan is that there is a price to income cap of 4, which is less than what many first time buyers are paying now. One effect could be to convince first time buyers to buy cheaper houses to qualify for the loan. In effect, the are being incentivized to buy less house and take on less debt. It's a bit like your dad offering to contribute $1,000 to the cost of your first car, but only if you buy used. This is a lot more accurate than you might initially think. Ken & Barbie, 1st time buyers, are not in a position to whine .... With their combined 120K/yr gross income (high for 80%+ of everyone in Canada) they have the following ... 118K (25%) of a 480K house, at 0% financing - 70K (35K each x 2) of interest free financing from their RRSP - 48K (10% partiicipation loan) of interest free financing from CMHC 127K (26%) of savings to buy that 480K house, on which no tax was paid on the investment income earned - Cummulative to date 63.5K/person TFSA limit (63.5k x 2 = 127K) They have one of the larger combined gross incomes in Canada, they were able to accumlate a 26% downpayment without having to pay tax on the investment income, 1/3 (118K) of their 362K total mortgage is interest free, and they have the ability to stop repaying their 70K RRSP mortgage at any time, without triggering a default. And all courtesy of the government of the land. Pretty generous? I don't like the house 480K could buy, and I don't like paying tax on my RRSP non-payment, is a life-style choice. You want more, you pay for it; if you haven't got the money - get a 2nd job, get a renter, or get another co-owner. Millions of other people accross Canada routinely do this, there is no reason you cannot; you just don't want to. You're not special. SD

AI algorithms actually are just an application of technical analysis, but in a diiferent context. 'History can predict future events'; in tech speak, make the machine calculate all possible correlations in a data set - & it WILL find some that are 'somewhat' predictive (middling R-square values). As it applies these correlations, we call it 'learning'. Of course, the 'machine' is only as 'smart' as the R-square of the correlation, and it's stability in an out-of-sample application; introduce it to a market-discontinuity, and it goes beserk :) One of the theoretical arguments around HFT is that if your holding period is very small (nano-seconds), almost all your price gain will be attributable to market drift; and we can calculate the amount of that drift, using the Brownian Motion equations. Applied to AI, the more you can apply the Brownian Motion equations to an AI algorithm, the more accurate and stable it becomes. All things coming out of the 'investment' silo, and making the jump into other places. SD ??? I find the above comments quite interesting. I've been using voice recognition software for quite some time and the technology relies on deep learning and machine learning, both subsets of artificial intelligence. Through recognition of voice patterns, the software reproduces written text and, over time, gets better at it. But the technology remains quite poor concerning certain aspects that require basic common sense (when I use a new word, a word in a different language, someone else speaks) and the "machine" does not recognize an obvious mistake with very potentially consequential impact on the substance of the underlying message. Proofreading has become markedly different as the software (even if amazingly efficient at certain tasks) can produce very stupid results. neil9327's point, I think, was that we would hope to integrate and or understand the underlying "behavior" that led to the subsequent price action in order to improve prediction capabilities. The best short-term predictive ability of where a stock will go is what it did in the short-term past and this has been captured by simple linear regression models assuming markets function linearly most of the times (with some predictable variation) and this is where correlation coefficients and R-squared values come into play. The idea (and the hope at this point) of machine learning and higher artificial neural networks for better prediction capabilities relies on improved pattern classification and ability to recognize patterns on its own in order to determine non-linear extrapolations. In a way, this is nothing new as Thomas Bayes described the foundation of machine learning in 1763. Pattern recognition can be improved but the underlying principles that rest on past behavior can lead one astray (such as when using the VaR concepts) especially when transitions occur between calm and chaos or vice-versa. Artificial intelligence will need to integrate behavioral aspects and IMHO we're not quite there yet on many levels. One of the biggest risks may be missing the forest for the trees (bigger picture, perspective etc) because the complexity of the model and the huge amount of data used may result in an illusory sense of precision. I would say pattern recognition has value but is only a starting Brownian point for deep and independent thinking. Potential bias: "Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike." Good points. The other issue with AI is that while development is happening in many different places, there's a lot of contagion as the many groups jump off each others innovations. While inherent to the scientific discovery, and agile project management, process; it produces 'dogma', along with discovery. "We invented it, this is how you do it, don't presume to tell me otherwise". At one time, we were also 'sure', that the earth was at the centre of the universe. For AI to work commercially, it needs you and I to permit it 'free' access to large amounts of 'our' transaction data. Whether at the granular, or meta-data level; that data is an asset - and you will be chaged to use it. All learning has an ongoing 'tuition cost'. To avoid spurious results, the data also has to be be complete - and accurate. Ever looked at historic data? It's full of inaccuracies, Ever looked at blockchain data? Every transaction record is perfect and 2nd party verified - but you dont get it unless the Oracle makes it available to the public (distrubted/private ledgers). Oracles are the toll-booth trolls, and you WILL pay them to access their 'golden data'. Blockchain/AI are opposit sides of the same coin ... but blockchain is the 'control' side of the coin. Something that AI has been reluctant to recognize. SD

AI algorithms actually are just an application of technical analysis, but in a diiferent context. 'History can predict future events'; in tech speak, make the machine calculate all possible correlations in a data set - & it WILL find some that are 'somewhat' predictive (middling R-square values). As it applies these correlations, we call it 'learning'. Of course, the 'machine' is only as 'smart' as the R-square of the correlation, and it's stability in an out-of-sample application; introduce it to a market-discontinuity, and it goes beserk :) One of the theoretical arguments around HFT is that if your holding period is very small (nano-seconds), almost all your price gain will be attributable to market drift; and we can calculate the amount of that drift, using the Brownian Motion equations. Applied to AI, the more you can apply the Brownian Motion equations to an AI algorithm, the more accurate and stable it becomes. All things coming out of the 'investment' silo, and making the jump into other places. SD

Well, Detroit went through a bankruptcy in 2013, and the Pensions obligations took a much smaller haircut than other debt obligations. Buffet wrote about this and clearly stated that moving a company to location with a pension problem implies a liability for the company or their employees and needs to be considered. Buying a property or house in such a Location is pretty much the same. The typical arrangement with these is that existing pension participants are protocted as as date X, and the plan closed to new participants. Go-forward inflation/cost-of-living adjustments then become zero until the plan becomes manageable again. Inflation, and early deaths essentially take care of the problem. SD

More inclined to think humans think too much of themselves ... Repeatedly don't wash and you're prone to boils. Filth caused the boil. Cause and effect. Pop the boil, but not remove the pus, and you just get a bigger mess. Intervention caused it to worsen. Also cause and effect. But did intervention CAUSE the boil? No. It was already there. Do planetary cycle changes trigger climate events? seems reasonable. Has human intervention (emmissions, pollution, etc) made the effects worse? quite probably. But did humans TRIGGER those climate events? pretty damn arrogant to think we're that powerful! All we can do is take our best guess, and decide as to whether its worth spending some of todays treasure in precaution. You also have to be alive to benefit, so if you're 90+ ... it's not so great a deal :) SD

I think the fact that climate scientists can't forecast accurately is more of a reason to play it safe and protect against climate change. If scientists were sure climate change would cost between 5 to 10 trillion to the global economy we could prepare for that. However if the range was 1 trillion to 25 trillion you have to be more proactive as the potential pain of 25 trillion significantly outweighs the upside suprise of only 1 trillion in costs. Additionally most climate scientists have usually been wrong by being too optimistic. Your argument has an unjustifiable lack of symmetry. Since we can't forecast accurately we should assume bad cases on both sides. For example if global warming is in fact preventing an incipient ice age than the cost of preventing it could be 100 trillion or more. So I say the surprise of an ice age vastly outweighs the pain of warming. There is also another problem. The future is filled with tail events like this...all of which have huge potential costs. You cannot avoid and plan for all of them simultaneously both because plans may be mutually exclusive and because you won't have the resources. My argument is that you would be far better off focusing on adaptation to an unknowable future than pretending you can predict it and avoid all its various worst cases. Nobody 'knows' the future, all we can do is guess. Then 'bitch' that my guess is more 'precise' than your guess ;) it's just a guess folks! The standard approach is to simply share the risk ..,, Pay for the event if/when it occurrs, and spread the cost over the entire population. Our neighbouring volcano blows up, we're all dead - the same as its always been. But at any point ....... We can simply move to someplace else, away from the volcano. Renewables versus fossil fuels. But it's not a guarantee; move to the ocean, and maybe we just drown when the volcano goes off. However, like cockroaches, some of us will remain living. Problem is ... Do you want to be the long-lived cockroach dressed in skins, with lower quality of life. OR - do you want to live like a king, with high quality of life, next to the volcano - until it blows? If you're old/sick you want the volcano - as time is limited, if you're young - you'd rather live forever! Who's doing the bitching? the rich countries, that are the equivalent of the old/sick! Sure, TODAY, the renewables are not as good or cost-effective as they could be. But it's fixable through repeat rounds of innovation, and economies of scale. Lots of runway. Fossil fuels are the same; but they've been around for a while, & the cheapest deposits have been used up. Less runway. Harvest the fossil fuels, reinvest in renewables, and you improve BOTH economics AND the environment. No brainer. Carbon taxes are just a way of doing it. Not what the spin doctors want you to hear. Screws up the message! SD

This is no different to TV advertising by a drug company; that puts an actor in a white coat, to sell the virtues of drug X, Y, Z. An infomercial, made to appear legitimate. But questionable infomation. All scientist are trained in scientific methodology. But a scientist trained in climate science, approaches it differently than a scientist trained in geology or biology. The geologic record evidences repeated climate events, the biologic record evidences mass extinctions at about the same periods; climate science relates all these things, and more, holistically together. Weight/legitimacy is relative. Climate scientist highest, then supporting sciences (geology, biology, etc), you and I next. But media 'presence' is weight/legitimacy x 'marketing'. A well marketed supporting character will often 'rank' higher than a poorly marketed expert; as the legal profession demonstrates every day. 'Heart' also often overides 'head'. 'Heart' says deny, 'cause we don't want to change or pay the costs of change; whereas 'head' says at least take precautions, just in case you're wrong. But .. as long as the 'effects' happen elsewhere, and slowly - 'heart' will prevail. Doesn't mean it's 'right'. SD

Guess what currency was used to transact for purchases https://blockonomi.com/history-of-silk-road/ All that the world knows, is that a digital wallet has 'N' BTC in it. The world does not know who's account that is, who paid into it, and who received any payments from it; just accounts. ONLY two entities know the identities; the account holder, and the Oracle that issued the wallet keys. SD

Much is made of the 21M cap. Problem is that BTC is not scarce, UNTIL that cap is eventually reached. The second problem is what does the cap include? Are the BTC in frozen wallets (lost the keys) included in that 21M? - 'cause if they aren't, it's hard evidence that the cap can, and has been changed; upwards (ie: inflation). The 'risk' also didn't go away, it just got swapped. BTC offers the most value to the criminal element, and BTC security ultimately rests on their material presence. Russian and Chinese hackers are very good, but nobody hacks their patrons as it leads to a very short life ;) Hence asset class non-correlation, comes at the cost of criminal association. Not always a bad thing, if the alternative is reliance on a corrupt cental banker. BTC is just another brand of soap; there are lots of competing brands (stores of value), and there always will be. There will also be competing central banker token (CBDC), that is interest bearing. 5% capture of the existing gold allocation seens overly optimistic SD

'Store of Value' is THREE things; 1) the 'store' itself, 2) the cost to 'transact' with the store, and 3) the anticipated length of the storage period. If I used my house as the 'store', the cost is maybe a low 3-6% (buy & sell commissions), but my 'store' is not unique. If I used Bitcoin as the 'store', the most recent 12 month nominal loss on sale (transaction cost) had I sold - would has been very high, but my 'store' is unique. But if I intended to hold that Bitcoin for 'N' years, and could expect a nominal fiat currency gain on sale (because of inflation) when I sell, then Bitcoin is a great store! Yes the tech is wonderful. But I just want the 'store of value' to be able to give me my money back, anywhere, when I want, at a net zero cost. Whether that 'store of value' is BTC, diamonds, gold, carpets, cars, art, houses, or sea shells - I don't really care. Look around you .... Where are the rich people 'storing their wealth' ? Houses, social connections, stock/bonds ........ BTC is far down the list. SD

Oh, I think you do .. https://www.coinbase.com/price/bitcoin Feb 18 2019, 1 BTC was worth 3,578 USD. 35.7M for that 10,000 BTC pizza One year ago, Feb 19, 2018, 1 BTC was worth 11,491 USD - and that 10,000 BTC pizza cost 114.9M Hey bro, where did my 79.2M go ? (114.9 - 35.7). 'Store of value' man! from your pocket into mine ;) Not quite how 'store of value' is supposed to work! SD No idea what you are talking about here. If you have invested in $25 into bitcoin in May 2010, It would have been worth $40 million dollars today. That is a simple fact. Verify this yourself. https://qz.com/1285209/bitcoin-pizza-day-2018-eight-years-ago-someone-bought-two-pizzas-with-bitcoins-now-worth-82-million/ At the time when this article is written it was worth 82 million. Today, the same 10,000 bitcoins are worth, $40 Million dollars. It is quite obvious that Crypto Assets are the best performing asset on a 10-year basis with a huge margin.

You might want to be remind yourself that you are ONLY talking Bitcoin here, and NOT the other crypto. You might also want to consider human nature. The store of value is based on a maximum 21M coin, a number set by humans. People change, key folks die, circumstances change. Todays 21M limit can, and probably will, change at some point in the future. And recognize that the store of value ..... also has to hold its value. Yesterdays $1.00 Bitcoin, selling for 2c today, hasn't exactly done its 'store of value' job very well. SD

Just to add to this .... Accounting treatment is mandated by the accounting standard used. US GAAP allows amortization over 40 years, IFRS requires a means test every year, and an immediate expense of any decline in valuation. However, IFRS also allows a write-up of goodwill, to the total amount paid for goodwill at the time of acquisition; US GAAP does not. The IFRS treatment is largely a response to the widespread abuse of goodwill accounting under GAAP; primarily by serial acquirers, technology, and drug companies. Create the goodwill by using overvalued company stock to pay for the acquisition; amortise the cost of the 'synergy premium' over 40 years to minimize the impact every year. And the bigger the goodwill asset, the better the Balance Sheet ratios, and the easier to debt finance. If the promised 'synergies' subsequently did not appear, it did not matter; as there was no impact on the annual amortization. The name may be the same, but economic and accounting goodwill are not the same thing. Goodwill is not a substitute for reputation; it's just acquisition premium. SD

Goodwill is a business expense no different to depreciation, and reflects use of the asset. Tax deductibility depends on the tax code of the country the company is based in, in most places it will be a tax deductible expense. Where goodwill was incurred in foreign currency, it is revalued the same as any other foreign currency asset at period end; typically at the end-of-period exchange rate. It's not that unusual a transaction; it's just not seen that often on most NA company books. SD

The company will report on its Statement Changes Financial Position the debt due on maturity date. There will also be a note disclosure that outlines the relevant details, terms, and conditions. The only time an entity can report a 'gain' on its issued debt, is if they've bought it back from the market at less than the maturity value; then either extinguished or defeased it. A company can only MTM assets and liabilties available for sale, and must record the MTM adjustment in Other Comprehensive Income. It cannot record a MTM adjustment on debt that it has issued, just because it has become less credit worthy. A company does not get a positive MTM on debt they cannot repay as a result of restructuring or bankruptcy. Under IFRS goodwill is means tested every year, and the deteriation in value recorded as a goodwill expense in the income statement. Under US GAAP, goodwill is simply amortized forward over up to a 40 year period. Obviously it is possible to 'engineer' transactions. Parents will often defease a portion of a subs debt to execute a restructuring. Goodwill will often move to a US GAAP reporter to minimize the annual goodwill charge. To avoid a note disclosure it must only be non-material, at the time it occurrs. SD First: I am no accounting expert, but I would like to add some questions for my own understanding... On the question whether principal shown or whether interest is included: Wouldn't that depends less on whether a company is a corporate or a bank, but on the form of the debt? To my understanding, loans taken by a company would be accounted for at amortized cost and hence be shown as principal, only. Debt issued via marketable securities (bonds) would be accounted for at fair value. Fair value is the value of all future payments, discounted by expected interest rates plus credit spreads of the issuer. Thus, debt accounted at fair value would be discounted for by the market's estimate of the issuer's creditworthiness: if the issuer's creditworthiness degrades, liabilities are reduced and a gain is shown. I don't like this effect either, but if you want fair value to reflect market price, then there is no easy way out of this - after all, the market will indeed pay less for your bonds if your creditworthiness degrades. If I remember correctly (and again, I am no expert on this, so I might remember wrongly), this discount is treated differently in U.S? IFRS and European IFRS: IIRC in Europe, the best approximation of market price, including discounts for creditworthiness, will be used for fair valued liabilities while in the U.S. the market price has to be corrected by changes from own creditworthiness so that deteriorating creditworthiness will not reduce the liabilities (which I think to be more intelligent than the European treatment because a company always will have to repay its debt fully) Can anyone confirm this? I am really not certain about this difference, but I think that the upcoming IFRS 9 will have rules that forbid to show gains on the balance sheet caused by deteriorating creditworthiness...

Liberty simply chose data points that are more sensational than relevant. Click bait. It would have been more powerful if he'd also included the number of dead coin, as a % of all coin issued. Sure, most crypto has lost 90%+ of it's peak value; yet despite that, Bitcoin (the monster), has dropped the least of all them. Maybe because Bitcoin is the only one you can hedge with options/futures? if you know how? Sure a lot of people lost a lot of money, greed's a bitch. Others made a lot of money on their 'crypto' investments, and continue to do so today; but they all have deep knowledge in the technology/asset class. Sadly, jelously is part of life, and nobody likes the winner - when it isn't them. Crypto isn't going away. There are quite a few very practical applications for utility coin, but they aren't public, and there's little interest in making them public. Many of them 'hiding' in plain sight, that you and I have been actively using for years, and take for granted. Everytime you have 'redeemed' a travel point, or a 'gift card', what did you think you were doing ;) SD

..... and that near/long-term prospects for o/g in the WCSB are not as sh1t as some would like you to believe. Not quite the 'political' message that everyone's conservative Alberta MP is currently whispering in their ear. SD

Financially, a house is valued the same way that we value a bond; PV of future benefits. When interest rates are high the PV of those future benefits is small (house is cheap); when interest rates are low the PV of those future benefits is large (house is expensive). Change usage, and you change the benefits, further altering the calculation. Leverage the asset (mortgage) and you magnify the PV change in benefit. Per the below reference. The average mortgage rate in Canada is 6.9% In the 1980’s it ranged from 12-14%, spiking at 21.94%; from 2008 it has fallen from 5% to the current 3.84%. The usual mortgage amortization term is 25 yrs. For illustrative purposes, make up a monthly payment; and discount it for 25 years at each of the above mortgage rates. The 1980’s house price is very low, the 2018 house price very high, and the average house price is ‘in between’. Divide by the average house price to get a sense of the impact neccessary to return to 'average'. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/remember-when-what-have-we-learned-from-80s-interest-rates/article24398735/ Of course, todays housing market should fall as interest rates go back to 6.9%. But we have no idea how long it will take for rates to rise another 310bp, and we know that the price for an individual property will be determined by supply/demand at the time of sale. If nobody wants your place, you’re not getting the price you want. Look around you. At current debt levels, how many people around you would still be able to pay their floating rate mortgage if rates were 300bp higher? They need to sell before that occurs, and move to something smaller with a smaller mortgage. The price of the $1M McMansion falls as everyone sells, and the price of the 500K townhouse rises as everyone buys one. The houses remain, with different people living in them, but the process takes a very long time. No crashes. Boomers owe their wealth to their ability to have bought a house in the mid 80’s, and finance it with a mortgage. 25 years later that house was worth many times what was paid for it, the mortgage was paid off, and the gain on sale was tax free. And every year of those 25 years, interest rates fell, continuously spurring the economy, and ensuring that you remain employed. And if you were a ‘bank’ employee you did even better, with ‘below market’ mortgages as a perk. If you’re < your mid-40’s today, this isn’t your life. SD

There are still 12 registered political parties Who sleeps with whom really doesn't matter; how many boxes on the voting card matters, and the sentiment on the day. We all found our last time around that many shades of blue isn't blue - it's orange. And as conservatives have ruled Alberta for 40 years+ that result could ONLY have been an 'own goal'. Sure mistakes happen, but this isn't the first time. We dont care who wins; just do it decisivly, and have your house in order. We don't see that it is, and this is a time when millions of people in Alberta need clear leadership to get things done. Silence, and toleration of a gong show is counter-productive. Folks in Alberta are angry, as they should be. They want change, and it isn't going to be 'same old' anymore. It also isn't going to be just changing the colour of the ruling political party. We wish Albertans luck in their choices SD