SharperDingaan

There's nothing wrong with the frequency of reporting. C-Suites, as agents, just don't like the accountability to the company's owners (you & I) Owners, investors, and management are simply DIFFERENT stakeholders, with DIFFERENT agendas. . The best that can happen is relative alignment; investors and managers in the short-term, owners in the long-term You want long-term thinking?, change the structural incentive for investors. The obvious place is taxation. Tax the sh1t out of the short-termers, and make the long-termers tax free. SD

You might want to approach this a little differently ... Most would expect that the NA auto-business isn't going away. There may be more robots & less people, fewer & bigger factories, changes in how autos are owned (sharing, etc), and changes in the supply chain; but the base business is pretty robust. People still have to get around, and cars wear out; economies are climbing out of the GR and interest rates are rising in part - to avoid triggering inflation. There's not much real underlying risk. Ultimately trade tarriffs are temporary, & it is too everyones benefit to remove them. However, whatever we might think of Trump few would expect rational behaviour; so expect tarriffs to get a lot worse - and share prices to decline accordingly. Most would expect that US attempts to change the regime in Iran are also unlikely to go smoothly. There is little reason to invest in NA auto unless it is for dividend yield. Ultimately the wild card is Trumps politics. Remove him and tarriffs can be rapidly unwound; improving FFO and share valuations all round. And in the contest of money versus politics, which side usually wins? Eventually the roulette wheel WILL come up on the opposing colour. So sit tight, and simply let Trump do your work for you. Every time he doubles down on US auto, another 25bp of dividend yield to you ;) SD

Business is not emperical science, there are no universal physics formulas. Repeat the same business experiment multiple times and you will get different results; hopefully normally distributed around a single mean. Data is just one of MANY inputs, not the deciding input. Most business decisions are made using a Balanced Scorecard, and numbers will typically contribute no more than 1/3 of the content. Business judgement, and 'people' impacts are as LEAST as relevant as the financial analysis; and the inputs for these are experience (anecdotal evidence in a different form). Sniff tests. Fail the sniff tests, and the numbers are irrelevant. We just don't want to hear it. SD

Every crisis is different, but the kicker here is the degree that China subsequently pulls back from trade with the west. It's not just disruption and a return back to the 'norm', it's also the 'norm' resetting to some other level. Our own thoughts are ultimately more trade between neighbouring asian nations, and less trade with the 'west; the same way that US trade is primarily between just Canada and Mexico. We anticipate a lot of recycling (steel, batteries, computers, etc); but timing, degree, & liklihood is anyone's guess. We aren't doing anything specific other than raising the quality of our investments, & continually recovering our cash outlays as opportunity presents. T-Bills and house money (in O/G, Iron, Crypto) give us lots of flexibility accross both time & economic cycle. All we need do is wait for the newspaper article telling us XYZ is collapsing (GE?), & deploy accordingly. SD

People want to pay with BTC 'cause it's cool. I get it. Problem is that BTC mining is too slow for most commercial purposes (buying a coffee). So deposit your BTC instead, into what is esentially an institutional enhanced DD 'wrap' account (hackable). Then pay for your transactions via existing payment rails, by 'margining' against your BTC and settling up with the institution once/day in satoshi (at 'their' buy/sell spread :))). Viola, the transactional speed problem is solved - and you're paying with Bitcoin! For most people, good enough. Agreed if I dont like fiat currency long-term, hold BTC intstead. But I'm going to hold it annonymously at Mt Gox, and beyond the reach of ALL banks AND governments; and NOT in a US institutional enhanced DD account. And yes it will be part of my portfolios 'gold' weighting, but to pay for coffee I'll just continue to use my nice annonymous fiat cash ;) Anarchy can be a bastard! We just don't want to hear that cash isn't going away, or that the real Bakkt value proposition isn't what's claimed. SD

The reality is that to touch Bitcoin is to deal with the criminal element. We can do our best to avoid legal restrictions by market segmentation, and seperating the legal from the illegal via a closed system, but the criminal element remains a major price determinant in the underlying BTC market. Bakkt account holders will also feel enormous pressure to money-launder via the 'legal' channel, and major banks are routinely caught money-laundering. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/11/hsbc-spared-us-money-laundering-sanctions-battles-clean-act/ "Britain’s biggest lender had to pay a $1.9bn (£1.4bn) fine in 2012 for helping drug cartels launder money in Mexico and for contravening sanctions to do business with Iran." Funds were being deposited in the UK, and wired to the US through a process of 'wire-stripping' Bakkt is a good idea, but they would have been far smarter to create their own token (BKKT) Open a futures and options market for it on Chicago, & make it exchangeable into BTC. Institutions get to safely buy/sell BKKT as the proxy for BTC, can hedge BKKT directly on Chicago, and can arbitrage BKKT/BTC via derivatives on Chicago. Remove the 21M BTC token limit, remove the institutional need to buy/sell BTC directly, and make all BKKT/BTC FX exchanges so visible - that few can stand the scutiny. Isolate BTC, and the institutional market, from the criminal element. That this DOES NOT exist yet, suggests they haven't fully thought it through. SD

They haven't thought this through. Every one of those holding altcoin/token needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements, and there is only one investable altcoin (Bitcoin). Then you have to choose to hold your Bitcoin in a hackable account, instead of in your own annonymous 'unhackable' account at Mt Gox Take out those who can't pass the DD, don't need the annonymity, and who don't want the more attractive 'direct' account at Mt Gox - and it's a very small market. We wish them luck, but it doesn't look promising. SD No. Everyone buying or trading or holding crypto through them needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements. No one "has" to hold their Bitcoin with them. The same could be said for Coinbase yet "Coinbase has twice as many customers as Charles Schwab.” You can build a trusted network on top of a trustless one, just not vice versa. Not so sure.... Agreed that a NYSE BTC counterpart to Chicago BTC Futures and Options is a desirable thing. Agreed that buyer/seller enhanced DD isn't their responsibility - IF they are PURELY an exchange. BUT .. why would you use a regulated channel to buy/sell Bitcoin, in scale? When the whole value-add of Bitcoin is it's annonymity, and its ability to evade capital and regulatory controls. It can only be a small but very active market I would suggest that the only reason for this is so that institutions can trade BTC Futures and Options. Limit the trades to just Bakkt, evidence that all FI's trading through Bakkt have to have an enhanced DD US account, and institutional BTC hedging becomes much easier. Problem is that any trading done through a fraudulent DD US account, will make Bakkt complicit - as it has just abetted a theft. And a great many people, have a very strong incentive, to do exactly that. Agreed it's a good idea. But these are just two of the more obvious things they don't seem to have thought through. But we wish them luck. SD

They haven't thought this through. Every one of those holding altcoin/token needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements, and there is only one investable altcoin (Bitcoin). Then you have to choose to hold your Bitcoin in a hackable account, instead of in your own annonymous 'unhackable' account at Mt Gox Take out those who can't pass the DD, don't need the annonymity, and who don't want the more attractive 'direct' account at Mt Gox - and it's a very small market. We wish them luck, but it doesn't look promising. SD

A few words on 'drafts' Legal 'drafts' are merely a pretty way of forcibly grabbing all the kids in a village, and forcing them to become child soldiers. It's just more effective, raises more bodies, and you can do the traumatising behind closed doors. The young are targeted first because they are easier to control, and can be held hostage against rash parental decisions. (advocate draft dodging, desertion, etc.). The middle-aged are targeted later once some of those sons & daughters have died for the 'cause', and the parents are now 'invested'. Little is as effective a deterent against passive resistance as dead kids. The machine isn't just training, it's also looking for the nascent killers and developing them. Remove the sergeant-majors, mix with the mercanaries, and take the restraints off. Commanders are routinely lost to their own men. Every-time there is 'leave', the killers are released into the general population - yet there isn't supposed to be any PTSD?; hookers around the world would say otherwise. Win your conflict and these killers have to be 'defused', fail and it's you who gets 'defused'. In a great many places; they are made a police officer, SWAT member, smoke-eater, etc. Ordinary people, turned into something entirely different. Hardly surprising they prefer not to talk about it. SD

Very true. "We were soldiers once, and young" is an exceptional book and the introduction discusses why vets gather in the corner of bars and say, "those were the days". It's not at all gung-ho, it's just an acceptance of the fact that sometimes you go through things that only people who were there at the time can understand, and the ties that those experiences create are incredibly powerful. You may also want to keep in mind that many were trained as ruthless killers, they were extremely good at it, and they operated under 'lax' constraints. Hence hardly surprising if they were in a Northern Ireland, Bosnia, etc. and choose not to talk about it. SD

When he's ready he'll quietly talk to you. When he does, offer to help pay for a psychiatrist. For most people; the closer they get to death, the more the ghosts come back for them. SD

"Someone's describing a complex 'made-up' thing as best as they can with only a few details", is no diffferent to someone describing a complex 'alternative fact' as best they can - with only a few details (to get caught on! :))) SD

"When I see people wanting to dismiss it outright, I look at their reasons, and in this case, find them to be weak and double-standards and things I don't get when I post similar things about men ("she didn't write it how I think she should've, there's no date and police record on this anonymous story, people don't make movie reference when telling the truth" (seriously, you know that out of 7 billion people nobody references movies when something movie-like happens to them?), etc). That's all I'm saying." There's no weak reasoning or double-standard being applied; the example simply failed the smell test, repeatedly, and by multiple independent reviewers. Preferring not to recognise it, doesn't change factual reality. Thousands of people get engaged, around the world, every day (ie: a dramatic event). The collective 'they' doesn't reference movies; the movies reference THEM - and do so to sell movie tickets (ie: commercial propaganda). The only reason to reference a make-believe source (ie: a movie) is so as to spread the content to as many susceptiible people as possible (propaganda) SD

I love it when people go "things should have happened the way I imagine it, and it didn't, therefore it's not true". That's not how life works. I could tell you a bunch of stuff that happened to me or friends of mine that don't fit neatly into "what should've happened" or "what usually happens" and yet it's true stuff. The pattern I'm noticing is of a huge double standard with these kinds of stories. If some random dude online tells a story of almost being robbed and maybe killed or badly hurt by a bunch of guys and getting away or whatever, it's like, "oh man, glad you're ok, that sucks", but if a woman tells a story of almost being attacked/raped/etc, it's suddenly the Spanish inquisition and none of it is credible because all of a sudden everybody's an expert in how real stories should be told. I just shared a story I saw for what it is. I'm not asking you to make an investment decision based on it. I don't know if it's true, but I find the opposition to it to be pretty weak, yet along predictable lines. The reality is that societies do not treat people equally, and it is women who usually bear the brunt. We know that if you can successfully cower someone by continuously beating them down, undermining, or discrediting; you obtain a type of immunity. Any kind of serious accusation the beaten-down makes, will not be believed; and the more serious the accusation, the LESS believed it will be. Hides a lot of crimes. 'Me too' and 'times-up' are long overdue - and just beginning. It is far harder to pick off cowered individuals when they are in groups, and far harder to defend against accusations of the same thing by multiple independent women - all at the same time. Even if you're rich and famous. Example, Donald Trump. Currently on wife #3, 12 hookers we know of, and countless other gropes - yet still president? So far he's been able to individually either intimidate, or pay the women off. But what happens if/when they eventually call him out as a group, and the Donald also liked to brag? And if on the visits to Moscow he also couldn't keep it in his pants? Al Capone eventually went down to tax evasion, Trump eventually going down to 'Me too' doesn't seem that far-fetched. The law appiles to everyone (including presidents), and any release of Moscow pictures just makes the case for removal stronger. An elegant 'face saving' solution that would also entrench 'Me too", and garner a lot of votes. Concede on the Russia Investigation, and the GORP will give you Trumps sex related resignation instead? No damaging admissions required? SD

"It was terrifyingly similar to the actual movie Taken. I was 21 years old and I was out with my husband and 4 of his friends (all guys). We were all out drinking and having a great time. I was noticeably drunk, I was stumbling a bit. I'm a small woman, 90 lbs. My husband's best friend about 15 feet ahead hears me first, stops dead in his tracks and starts bolting towards me. " In the real world people don't refer to movies. Additionally, when was the last time you saw a married 21 year old (even in Austin)? And have you ever come accross a drunk drinker who knew he/she was noticeably drunk - yet was still aware enough of their surroundings to notice the friend, but NOT the supposed immediately rising danger right next to him/her? It indicates targeting by an incompetent author. SD

The smartest thing you can do is get out of the way. Pay for them to see a female financial advisor and a female 'life-coach', preferably one whose client base is primarily business women, divorcees, and mistresses/madams. The sexist reality is that a womens looks and fertility are a wasting asset, that she needs to maximize the value of. And the porfolio management skills required are way beyond what is being discussed here. There are some funny sides. You will periodically find out how stunningly prudish you are! which will impact your sex life. SD

The auditor is hired by the BOD and reports to the BOD. If something is found the BOD is advised accordingly, informally through senior management, and formally through the audit report and 'in camera' session (the what's NOT in the audit report). Tone at the top is set by the BOD, not senior management. Choosing to 'look the other way' and allowing corruption to flourish is entirely on the BOD, and it is the BOD that you sue. The company directors insurance will cover their liability (within limits), and the insurer will in turn sue the auditors, senior managers, etc. Where there's an incident, there's a negotiated settlement, and the whole thing is swept under the rug to avert a PR related fall in the share price. As an investor, your only real choice is whether you continue to own shares in the company or not. Alternatively whether you're going to short the company in anticipation of a disclosure. No points for being 'right', but 'wrong' on timing. SD

A few additions, as one of my partners has significant expertise in this area. Trying to predict outcome from a disparate data flow is a fools game. At best the prediction is just a more precise guess, but it just has to be better than the other guys. Back testing is typically against a VaR model, with an AI algorithm that is 'fitted' to the data. Hence the predictive power has to be truly awful to fail the test parameters, yet most do. They can all predict a number, but the +/- standard deviation is so high as to be essentially useless. Noise versus signal is typically addressed by applying opposing white noise (randomly generated) against the source. Viewed on an oscilloscope you would see a flat line with spikes/valleys suggesting signal. Increase the opposing white noise and you will see fewer but stronger signals - if they exist. The process is well understood, and widely used in robotic industial bottling to poduce a 'fill' within preset upper and lower boundaries at a CI of 95% or better. An AI robot continually sniffing, continually sees 'new' signal, and could trade accordingly - we call this 'learning'. Problem is that for this to work, the future data stream has to look similar to the 'sampled' historic data stream. The repeated back testing failures tell us that this isn't the case. It also ignores competitors deliberately introducing toxic 'data points' into the market, to screw up your algorithm - & trade against it. End of the day it essentially remains a zero-sum game. The AI slice of industry profit barely covers its costs, and comes at the cost of smaller slices of instutional and retail clients. Speed, # of transactions, and trading volumes increase - but no net benefit. Not quite what we're being led to believe. SD

The warehouse full of rigs is a mining pool, the biggest of which are in China. Their main issues are the costs of eletricity, obsolescence, and ongoing crackdowns by various authorities. https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/china/ Mining pools mine for multiple coins, & essentially allocate CPU based on return/CPU second. Pay up or you get no mining, & do it by reducing the complexity of the hash - to push out more coin for the same amount of CPU time. The result is multiple coin, and quasi monopoly control. Coin from mining pools is typically converted into Bitcoin, for later sale into the market. Bitcoin options and futures are used to control price volatility, and provide liquidity until the underlying coin is sold. Hence there is a persistent seller of underlying coin, and a bias for downside price protection. Opportunity So long as mining rig sales, & traditional ICO's continue to funnel cash into the eco-system, there is cash to cover operating costs. But squeeze the back-street exchanges, regulate the ICO process, and speed up rig obsolescence - & only the Bitcoin derivatives market is left. Again, opportunity. Altcoin is a P2P business, and one of the key business models of P2P is addiction. The consolidated mining pool is the digital equivalent of a drug cartel. SD

CPP 2018 A/R http://www.cppib.com/en/ar2018/ Every generation in a DB pension plan bitches that the generations before it got a 'free ride'. Until it's pointed out that were it not for those previous generations, there would not be a pension plan. It is also pretty to hard to argue that the CPP will 'not be there' when the time comes. Every Canadian is guaranteed a minimum retirement income (CPP, OAS, GIS) by the federal government; the same guarantee that backs every fixed income obligation issued by the Bank of Canada. Uncles just didn't want nephews relying on it. The major Canadian DB Pension Plans (CPP, CP, Teachers, OMERS, OPSEAU, HOOPP, etc) are also very well run, and currently are for the most part in significant SURPLUS positions. Re centralized universities: http://www.electronicinfo.ca/universities Agreed universities are in the major population centres, and most people live in the major population centres. Hence for most people there is a university within relatively easy commuting distance. But if you're from a rural area, from northern canada, or your university isn't very good, or doesn't offer your language (first nation, french, etc.) - you are going to have to travel. Nothing wrong with that SD

In the non-too-distant future I will be back in the crypto 'game', but this time as issuers of our own altcoin. 4 pref share altcoin and 1 utility token using fractional banking. For quite some time now, it has been practical to issue a block-chain altcoin as evidence of a stock certificate. The Oracle acts as both transfer agent, and exchange facility; the company itself typically being market-maker. The expectation is that the altcoin will not have a market unless there is a 'liquidity' event. We will be a regulated (FSCO) issuer in the charity space, funds for development and air-drops financed by prefs, liquidity event being a sale to a larger player (province, fed, etc.). Structured as esentially a modified P3; contribute to the venture and get your cummulative contributions back if we can get it taken out; block-chain, smart-contract applications heavily supporting operations. It will very likely launch with the 'traditional' whitepaper, and a seperate business plan released under confidentiality agreement. We also understand that it will be the first of its kind in Ontario, & quite possibly Canada as well. There were lots of ways to 'short' the Bitcoin run-up to 20K/token. This is just one of them ;) SD

According to StatsCan an average of 30000 people moved to the U.S. per year from 2000 to 2010, less than 1% of the population. (there were no stats on how many were college graduates that moved) StatsCan also shows about 450000 people get a post secondary diploma or degree each year. Just to add to this: Per StatsCan Canada has 37M people, with the bulk of population growth coming from immigration. As College/University facilities are centralized, graduates are expected to move to find work. No different to the US. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2018000/pop-eng.htm There is a very big difference between students simply using the opportunity to travel/work abroad immediately after graduation, and people moving for a better life. Graduates are also shoppiing for their significant others - so if you play hockey, and like blue-eyed blonds?, you move to Scandanavia and find one to help you learn the language. Ultimately, life events will determine where you end up. SD

Quite agree, it's the smart thing to do. But I'll also rapidly pay more - right now; if you simply cut off the water to my lot, and block my sewage outlet (infrastructure)! And I cant get out of it unless I either pay up, or sell up!! Welcome to the gilded cage. SD

NAFTA has a 10 year reversible termination transition. Even if the plug is pulled tomorrow, NAFTA will continue through the next 2 1/2 electoral cycles - and the chump can do absolutely nothing about it. Nobody would negotiate a shorter term, and nobody would enter into one-sided bi-lateral trade with such a dominant partner. Yet the chump is f***** if he can't get a 5-year sunset clause? Is the chump likely to still be president in 10 years? Are successor administrations likely to be as disruptive as this one? If the answer is 'no' - the responsible thing is to continually make the case that restricting free trade hurts everyone, and not negotiate. That hypothetical new foreign plant isn't going to get built in the US either, as who would want to deal with an administration that tore up a free trade deal that worked - for a long time, and very well? That hypthetical new domestic plant ain't going to be exporting either, so it can only be a smaller plant employing fewer people (smaller market + robots replacing people). Real smart. The players might change, but the show will go on. SD