SharperDingaan

Canaada is not the US. It's a deliberate choice 'by the people of Canada, for the people of Canada'. If the US cannot export its milk, eggs, or chicken that is purely a US problem. Produce less, eat more of it, or let it rot. Every country maintains strategic reserves, typical US examples are oil, certain minerals, certain technologies, etc. Canadian family farms are strategic reserves. Relying on bigger, (primarily US) corporate farms for cheaper food, is a very dumb thing - as anytime the US chose to restrict/cut off food supply, Canada would starve. Paying more to maintain family farms, is a lot cheaper than paying extortion money to an oligarch of food suppliers. The US is whining because the targeted tarifs are biting. Almost all trade partners have targeted the same industries, and employment in those industries is about to rapidly crash without a prompt resolution. The chump tried to bully his way at the G6+1, and lost so badly that he had to run away early (4 hours earlier than planned?). So now he's doubling down, and trying to distract wih NK instead. Sadly bodies are going to have to fall before there's a change. And it will not be until a whole lot of republicans lose their seats. SD

The linkage is just less apparent in developed countries. Much more of the population works in the gig economy, than has been the case for a very long time. While an energetic bright fellow could do very well, most people will take home less - and lose benefits such as healthcare, drugplans, etc. Costs that now have to be paid out of a reduced income. Food has seldom been cheaper that it is today, but its cost has begun to rise. For a great many people a 10% increase in food cost + a 5% increase in shelter costs (mortgage/rent) = at least one monthly visit to the foodbank. How long is a politician going to stay in power, when those foodbank users are coming from the richer neighborhoods? Supposedly if food costs more - you would cut back elsewhere. But it doesn't happen this way. Are you really going to give up that 2nd car? Sell the house and move to something smaller (mortgage you can actually afford)? Give up that coffee habit or street lunch 4+days/week? Give up some data usage on your cell phone? Or is it more likely that you're going to use debt to maintain that lifestyle that you can no longer afford? Until you're cut off. But if everyone BK's at the same time, everyone gets bailed out. Politiciians are replaced in the name of change, protectionism is imposed, & locals are put back to work - to raise the money to keep servicing their debt. In different times we called this slavery, 'selling your soul to the company stole'. Same masters in place, just different generations. Ultimately the cause is rising basic costs (food costs), and inability to adapt. SD

The US would not expect to drop its subsidies in Agriculture (corn), or Europe to drop its subsidies in dairy. So why should Canada? If the US is so competitive, why are its agricultural subsidies so high relative to the price of the product produced? Remove those subsidies and either US farmers bankrupt, or prices rise so high (to compensate for removal) that no one can afford to eat the product. Keep the subsidy, produce only what you consume, and everyone can eat for less. Everyone else gets it, the US .... not so much. Food is not a 'normal' product. Farmers are price takers, collectively producing as much as possible to maximize revenue received. Problem is that when EVERY farmer EVERYWHERE does that, the ocean of product isn't worth anything as supply greatly exceeds demand. Farmers bankrupt until there are only a few left, grain bins empty as supply dwindles, and a loaf of bread ends up costing whatever those remaining NOW HUGE farmers dictate. We have subsidized prices, around the world, for a reason - it mitigates against civil unrest. When food becomes out of reach, populations riot. SD

I'm really cool with this attitude. It means that those pink sheet, unlisted companies that are worth buying will trade at a deeper discount then they otherwise would. The better for me to buy, my dear. Only so long as it doesn't BK next week! SD

Just to add to this ... Your report is a marketing document. Show that you can write, you are not the same as everyone else, and can demonstrate the RELEVANT value proposition by the 2nd paragraph. You have to beat the guy in Asia, who also has a CFA - but costs 1/2 what you you do. If you're so good why aren't you rich yet ? (& therefore talking to me). It is really about ROI, and every salesperson has a credible story. Question is are you walking the talk, & is it clearly your best option? Hard to sell a client that your idea is the best option, if in looking at you he/she thinks that you cant even identify your own best ROI opportunity (MBA versus continued time in the industry). Prospective return over remaining runway usually being the main determinant. Up and out. You have to steal someone else's lunch, and are only as good as your last idea. Analysts are inventory, and all else equal - LIFO will prevail. The cuts will also be driven primarily by market level; so great ideas in a falling market aren't going to help you. Conversely in strong winds - even the worst analyst is going to get employed, and on very little 'effort'. So what? It really comes down to market forecast (timing). If you think the winds are strengthening it might be worth continuing, if not ..... it's a different calculation. Best of luck. SD

Keep in mind that combing the pink-sheets is digging in dog-sh1te. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/070313/use-caution-trading-pink-sheet-stocks.asp If the firm could not make/maintain a listing requirement, do you really want to be in it? If the firm (Nestle, etc.) is actually listed elsewhere (just not in the US), is it really 'unlisted'? Investors prefer to trade on a listed exchange because there is far more investor protection. Trading a pink sheet is akin to trading on a back street exchange, and hoping the other side is going to be honest with you. It is not in their interest. SD

Probably not what you want to hear .... but just do an MBA and by-pass the investment industry entirely. Go the corporate finance route instead, and aim at the Treasurer/CFO positions in the Fortune 500 to Fortune 1500. You already have the CFA. Count how many 'old' people you see in a GS/MS/etc. Estimate their 'average' age and deduct your age. That's how long you can expect to remain in the industry - IF everything works out. Still seem worth it ?? GS/MS/etc. is just the match-maker between investor and business (corporate finance dept). The GS/MS 'old' folks move to corporate finance, and without them (as alumni) GS/MS would do a lot less business; so why not just go to corporate finance directly. You will be doing much the same thing. SD

I'd rather pay 15-20% rates for a few years, while wages are also inflating relatively rapidly, and then be left to pay the rest of the principal over a couple decades at much lower rates, than sign up for a gigantic amount of debt at almost zero interest rates, knowing that rates will likely rise over a couple decades and the principal will still have to be paid. Mortgage rates in the high teens are incredibly destructive. You don't try to buy a house, you just try to hang on to what you have and hope that rates will be lower when you have to renew. If it means renewing at 5-6% above your previous rate, there is a very real chance that you will have to sell the house. If your mortgage is floating you need (a lot of) renters to help cover the interest. As an additional 25bp on your mortgage every quarter costs an additional $250/yr per 100K of mortggage. IE: Extra $250 for Q1, extra $500 for Q2, extra $750 for Q3, extra $1000 for Q4. Yes, an extra $1000/yr is only $83.33/month (1-2 coffee's/day) - but if your mortgage is $500K its $416.67/month ABOVE what you are already paying. Give up that 2nd car or find a renter, and be prepared to give up MORE next year. SD

It's just clever marketing. Early boomer grandpa dies, kids (30-40's) inherit. Net-worth increases. $ received pay off motgage, monthly mortgage payment is now discretionary cashflow. Distort cause/effect. Wealth of $X = income requirement of $Y. You're under it. You have to do something. Bait/switch. Income is really a proxy for discretionary cash (cash in - cash out), these OTHER numbers are what you would need. Capture. Commit 70% of your 'freed' mortgage payment. You too could retire as one of the 1%, AND have some extra cash to spend! Reinforce. Friends envy you. Comes your turn ... this is the guy who helped us. The question never asked? .... what are you REALLY going to do with an income of 470K every year. It's way more than most people could possibly ever need, and at this level most people could buy a new house, AND FULLY PAY IT OFF, every 2 years. The primary beneficaries would seem to be your therapists, liquor store, and drug dealer. .... Can't possibly have the client asking this! distract them with the pretty coloured forecasts instead ;) SD

It would be very naive to believe that widespread manipulation does not exist in both the crypto-currency markets and the ICO space. In many places, it is the main reason why a back-street exchange is created. As there are very few legal penalties, it is an entirely rational and profitable thing to do. Attend any Blockchain/AI conference, and the level of audience anti-government, anti-regulatory stance is obvious. DL is the solution! they're trying to take it away from us! don't let them! Not a lot different to a US pro-gun rally, and many of the same tactics. Drown out the longer term requirements of corporate social responsibility, and you can continue with the short-term profit manipulation. Money is oxygen, starve the flow and the target suffocates. Bitcoin, as the only crypto with a recognized option and future market, is the only crypto that is institutionally 'investable'. Probes, concerns, etc. oblige the majority of institutional money in the space to stick to Bitcoin, diverting money away from the other crypto, starving flow and lowering prices. US KYC is moving to the BitLicence outlines of 23 CRR-NY 200 15(h). Identification and verification of account holders, and enhanced DD if you are trading crypto. Cant trade virtual currency with a foreign entity that does not have a physical presence in any country. Its getting harder to trade annonymously, corroding the annonymity of cryptocoin, and harder to divert institutional flow away from regulated channels - further starving capital flow. Currently, it's hard to put up Bitcoin as loan collateral. Play ball, and rules could be changed, lowering cost and greatly expanding the Bitcoin market space - at the expense of oher crypto. Particularly back-street market crypto. .... And all the time the various laws around the world are catching up, and cross-referencing against each other. Shrinking the legal vacumn. Hard to be sympathetic. SD

The housing market changes drastically, new hubby updates the purely 'rational' spreadsheet. You currently rent. The spreadsheet says buy, new wife agrees, next few months are spent narrowing down neighborhoods (with spreadsheet assistance), and looking at houses. So far so good, all pefectly logical. 3 possibles show up. A teardown shit-box that can be rebuilt into whatever you want, #1 choice of the spreadsheet. A good average house that only requires minor updates (remove a wall or two, update kitchen, new appliances, carpet/hardwood, etc), #2 choice of the spreadsheet. A 'well lived in' quaint old house that will require major repairs in a few years, choice #3 way down on the spreadsheet. While construction/upgrades take place, you would continue to rent - minimizing disruption (& stacking the deck). You're informed with a wide smile, and a closing of the lap-top - that it's going to be #3. Because it has the best 'vibe'. WTF!! No further explanation required. Wife 1, Spreadsheet 0. Some things just cant be done by spreadsheet ::). SD

In the spirit of the thread I will add to this. During the GR2 I were offered a flat in Knightsbridge (London, UK) by a city acquaintance who needed to sell. He needed out quickly, and we were offered a fabulous price - provided we could give him some leeway. It was a lot of money for us, and as the property could not be mortgaged for a time - it meant margining/liquidating the lions share of the family portfolios. Significant risk. The typical UK practice (in Knightsbridge) is that you don't buy land plus the structure on it, you buy the unexpired portion of a 99 year lease on the land plus structure. The lessor then either lives there, or sells a series of sub-leases on the property over time in 1-5 year periods. Everyday operating costs are typically the sub-lessors responsibility. London has worked out very well for us, and we have been able to place the bulk of the gain in the hands of the nephews (tax reasons). Successive returns of capital have repaid the mortgages taken out along the way, and the nephews are now graduating and working in London. When the nephews enter their 30's the flat will be sold. I raise this anecdote because there are times when life-time RE oportunities will be offered, and you must be ready to grab at them. You need to keep your head - while all around you others are losing theirs, and have the courage to call the nay-sayers. In our case we have both investment and quantity surveyor expertise, so the decision was a lot easier. The WEB punch-card is not free. SD

Buy versus rent is not a numbers decision, and it will be decided by your significant other. Until you settle down, treat the place you sleep as just shelter, build your down payment as high as possible, and spend your time looking for the right person. Your time is better spent focused on the lifetime investment, not the brick and mortar one. As a single young person it makes little sense to buy. You are moving to where the work is, you have no idea how long you will be in city 'X', and you have no idea where your significant other is. Once she/he is found, at some point in the relationship you're going to want to try living together - and the old place is going to go. If you own a property; every time you move its 5% in commissions and another 10-15% (over time) to redecorate the place. For most folks, first kids will decide it. You will be cocooning in one place for 10-20 years, and the long hold period will heavily favor purchase over rent. The biggest new-build you can afford in a new development, with space to grow into, and trees that will be fully grown by the time you're ready to sell. Nothing prevents buying in city 'Y', and renting the place out while you live somewhere else (city 'X'). A great many young women do exactly this, and the property is often a shared purchase in a smaller city - shared between female siblings and a divorced parent. The women can get on the property ladder, without having to continually find tennants; yet retain their ability to move for work/romance. Put aside the spreadsheets. SD

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-initial-coin-offerings-welcome-to-a-world-of-charlatans-and-frauds/ Written by Nouriel Roubini "Thus it is little wonder that, according to the ICO advisory firm Satis Group, 81 per cent of ICOs are scams created by con artists, charlatans and swindlers looking to take your money and run. It is also little wonder that only 8 per cent of cryptocurrencies end up being traded on an exchange, meaning that 92 per cent of them fail." "Hence, most ICOs deny investors any legal rights whatsoever. They are generally accompanied by vaporous “white papers” instead of concrete business plans. Their issuers are often anonymous and untraceable. And they skirt all AML regulations, leaving the door open to any criminal investor" "Jay Clayton, the chairman of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, recently made it clear that he regards all cryptocurrencies as securities, with the exception of the first mover, Bitcoin, which he considers a commodity. The implication is that even Ethereum and Ripple – the second- and third-largest cryptoassets – are currently operating as unregistered securities. Gary Gensler, a former chairman of the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission who now teaches a course on blockchain (the technology underlying cryptocurrencies) at MIT, has also suggested as much." The 92% failure inference is a little unfair; as ICO's are primarily issued by start-ups - and 92-95% of blockchain start-ups bankrupt within their first year. The take-away here is that even if there is a grandfathered solution, the prices of Ether and Ripple are highly likely to fall like a brick in the coming crackdown. Obviously, the investable solution is BTC futures and options. As at time of writing ETC is trading at USD 675.79, and XRP is trading at USD 0.692 SD

Trains are stuck to rails, and go only from point A to point B. Trucks are not, and it's why we have inter-modal transport. You build a regional distribution centre next to a rail line, and transport containers to/from port via rail. Unload the containers, unload the contents, & distibute to warehouse &/or sales locations by truck. Where possible automate the warehousing to maximize reliability and minimize cost. The 'last mile' truck isn't driverless, as cost exceeds benefit. The main cost driver for self-drive trucks is JIT inventory requirements. Pay more for the greater control and reliability of trucks, and offset the cost against lower working capital costs. The more limited contents of 3-4 trucks 2-hours late because of border delays will not shut down a production line, the much bigger quantities in a delayed train will. Take the truck drivers out, to further improve control and reliability. The big benefit is greater safety on the highways. Fewer fatigued long-haul drivers and more fresher local drivers, with rail and self-drive doing more of the long-haul. SD

Pretty much. Trucks will continue to handle excess demand, short-distance logistics, etc., but the bulk will still be transported by rail for reasons Cardboard mention. Self-driving trucks will disrupt the trucking industry, but it's not going to displace rail. In the supply-chain use, finding/retaining long-haul drivers has always been a problem. Most would expect that the operating cost of a self-drive will only be marginally lower than for a truck+driver (dont cut cost if you dont have to); but it will go a long way to alleviating the driver problem. In the mning use, driver cost is the issue (200K+ to drive a 300 ton Heavy Haul truck). It's boring work, you need a lot of them, and its prone to injuries through inattention. Driverless is both a real cost-reducer and safety-enhancer. There are also advantages to deep hard-rock mining where temperatures are high & cooling systems are at/past practical limits. SD

Do a google search on cryptocurrency funds. Read up on what non-recourse means. For this purpose non-recourse is a free put option on the unit - with proceeds equal to the margin borrowed. So continually sell the rips, buy the dips, and withdraw capital from both fund and broker. Continually test withdrawal ability, liquidate immediately and withdraw everything as soon as there is resistance. If it blows up, simply walk-away. It will not make you friends, so expect resistance. Brokers/HF's are supposed to make the money, not the client. https://next.autonomous.com/cryptofundlist/ https://www.investitin.com/crypto-fund-list/ SD

Per your example, they both go up 500% - so you would be indifferent. But you would actually go with BTC as 1) less capital is risked to get the 500% return, & 2) there is no risk to a changing premium. What you really want is a cryptofund invested in primarily OTHER than BTC, that will give you non-recourse margin against the units purchased. Keep taking $ off the table through your hold period, & simply walk away if/when the unit/fund implodes under market volatility. The most you can lose is your iniitial equity MINUS whatever you have cummulatively taken off the table. Same trick that was used on inflated mortgages/house prices - going into the GR2 ;) It just needs a foolish banker, & crypto has a lot of them. SD

Almost all altcoin and token is very difficult to short. There are people willing to lend token (criminal element), but its reputationally risky, an expensive carry, & on an on-demand basis only. Far simpler to either sell existing & buy-back lower, or avoid it entirely - hence the shorting comment. It is well known that without the discipline of short-selling, share prices artifically inflate as the bull case feeds upon itself. And as there are no valuation metrics, there is material information assymetry, and distorted supply/demand - there is little price support when the industry sells off. The result is volatility, and a systemic downward bias as fresh demand becomes increasingly hard to find - hence the 'glad to short' comment. Some think the price support collapses this year (90% fall thread) Of course Bitcoin (as the only crypto with an investable option and future market) is the exception. However, given its attractiveness to the criminal element, WEB can't exactly be seen recommending it. It is highly unlikely that WEB has a 'blind spot' around BTC. The blush is coming off the crypto currency rose, but it's still way too early to predict outcome. SD

It’s useful to look at this through a portfolio allocation prism. Assume a 60/40 equity split. Ever since the GR2, interest rates have been driven artificially low. If the expected S&P nominal return is 9%, & the bond return is 3.25% - the portfolio should have earned 6.7% [0.6x9% + 0.4x3.25%] Redo the calculation today. Most would expect interest rates to rise & equity returns to fall accordingly. If the expected S&P nominal return falls to 7.5%, & the bond return is now 4.50% - the portfolio should earn 6.3% [0.6x7.5% + 0.4x4.50%]. Supposedly a bias downward as the globe comes out of the GR2? When historically, equities generally perform better when they come out of recession. Mathematically, for the portfolio to maintain the 6.7% return – the S&P return has to increase by 38% [4.5/3.25] = 1.38. Hence the lower the base bond return is - the more the S&P return needs to increase – and the more risk an investor has to take on. A PM would simply churn the portfolio & invest in more risky equities. The long-term value investor would just continue to hold onto their dividend payers – with the dividend payments returning some of the original capital outlay every month; and thereby raising return on the remaining capital invested. SD

There is a pretty good understanding of what is/is not 'OK' in Canada - whether the legal communiuty likes it or not. If the coin or token is for 'internal' use only (ETH) it's not a security - & therefore 'OK' If the coin or token is just a 'crowd-funding' token (most custom ERC20 token) - it is not a security - & therefore 'OK' If the coin or token is just replacing a share or bond certificate (paper or book-based) - it is not a security - & therefore 'OK' If you create a crypto exchange to buy/sell various crypto - you are an unlicensed exchange - & offside. The only exception is if you are the market maker for your own 'internal' currency; & exchange at a fixed exchange rate. If the intent of your 'crowd-funding' token is that it is a subsitute for common shares - you have issued a security illegally - & are offside. It is not the issuers problem if the token buyer bought the token in expectation of a later sale at a higher price (speculation is not illegal). The expectation (not a requirement) is that the issuer adequately disclosed the nature of the crowd funding token at the time it was sold (white paper/selling process combination). 'Adequate', is open to interpretation. You are supposed to use the crowd funded proceeds to do what you promised; but if you lose it through incompetence, or bankrupt through really bad management - it's just everyday start-up business risk. Whether you bankrupted the start-up by making all the company cars Ferraris, & throwing extravagent parties, or not - & it is this kind of behaviour that the WSJ is alluding to. Irresponsible, but not illegal. SD

Government crypto (CBDC) is just digital, versus physical, fiat currency. Where you have an economic trading block, it does make sense to have an internal CBDC for that trading block; but it's not going to take bitcoin to zero. SD

Hard to imagine the folks at Berkshire haven't been doing their DD on this. The existing solution is Everledger , it has been around for some time, & it is backed by bigger/better? players. http://tech.eu/brief/everledger-funding/ The real money here is in using the blockchain provenance to sell the jewel at a much higher price. It also will not hurt if a famous celebrity was (proveably) the diamonds owner at some prior point, certification is limited to diamonds > $1M, & costs 10K/pop. If sir has to ask the price .... may be recommend our cousins down the street. The real market isn't diamonds either. It's the more numerous high-end coloured stones, and the old master artworks. Perhaps why an auction house is the partner? SD

We just recognize that ever since Lehman Brothers, & prior - the west has experienced continuous rounds of aggressive central bank stimulation to avoid another global depression. As at today, there is 10 years+ of stimulation - that hasn't unwound yet. The major central banks have finally slowly begun to raise interest rates. To use a kitchen reference; the chefs have noted the pot is starting to boil, and turned down the heat. Problem is that the bigger the pot (10 years of stimulus), the harder it is to control. Today we have blockchain fundamentally disrupting long standing business practices, and a level of global 'political risk' that is a lot higher that it was 10 years ago. Added to which is growing recognition that to make the big money (via derivatives); is to systemically bet against stability. El Diablo has a lot of helpers. It's hard to see how we don't get more bubbles, more frequently, and how they would not feed into each other at some level. And as algorithms only work under stable conditions, and until they don't work - the frequency and size of 'discontinuities' should be nice and high. Not your dad's market. SD

Purely speculation. Looking forward today, 6-9 months out; it's pretty hard to see how the US doesn't end up in a trade war with somebody. It's also hard to see how some accident that significantly raises oil prices - does not occurr, somewhere in the world. Hard to see how the market overall would not decline were this to occurr. It's unlikely that Bitcoin would have gone to 20K/token - were huge amounts of money not freely and widely available. Should the sh1te hit the fan, and money become less available - who is going to be buying Bitcoin? And if you held Bitcoin - wouldn't you be inclined to start selling (raising supply), as you saw the above starting to occurr? So at what price does standing in the blood become interesting? Maybe 50-70% off the current price. SD