SharperDingaan

Can we have that now pretty please? These days it seems every retard and his brother attend university and the levels of he university have dropped at a frightening degree. On top of that many universities are highly politically biased and the "challenge everything" attitude has made a 180. This is all caused by a too large student population. On the one hand people with too low a base intelligence (no critical thinking) and on the other the universities can't handle the larger student population, degrading the level of the studies. A secondary benefit would be that the drop outs would go into trade schools. And that's exactly of which supply is lacking now. So students would be happier, learning a (useful!) skill at their level of thinking with almost guaranteed job security and society would benefit greatly too. All for the small price of governments minding their own damn business (w/e that is) and letting the free market do its thing. If a student has to be 21+ (vs 18) in order to get a student loan, the simple 2-3 years of post high school work experience (more maturity) should go some way to curing this. Mom/dad are no longer as influential (opting for status vs practice), and if the student is now paying most of the bill - there are going to be more rational choices. Same number, or possibly fewer students - but a higher proportion in subjects/trades with more application. The market at work. SD

SD - can you elaborate when you say sound regulatory oversight? As someone who works in the compliance world, I think the regulatory oversight in Canada is a joke. What makes you say that the regulators do a good job in Canada? In Canada. The vast majority of mortgages are issued by federal FI's regulated by OSFI, working closely with the BOC and provincial regulators. Financial stability is maintained by OSFI /BoC stress testing FI capital against various scenarios, and changing the rules as required (new mortgagers passing a 200 bp stess test before the morgage is issued). You do as you're told, when you're told, as your federal FI operates at the 'pleasure of her majesty'. A Provincial FI is subject only to the rules of the Province, usually a lot less strict. But if the Provincial FI is selling mortgages to others outside of the Province, there will be an OSFI 'overlay'. So long as a Province 'X' FI meets local requirements it can originate a mortgage in Province 'X'. It can re-sell it to anyone it wants, but a Federal FI will have limits on how much of these Province 'X' mortgages it can hold (originate or purchase). Hence you can originate as much dog-sh1te as you want, but you need an other than federal regulated FI to buy the bulk of those mortgages. So you securitize what you couldn't sell, and it becomes the mortgage investors problem - not that of the Canadian financial system. The US doesn't have anywhere near this crisp a level of seperation. So when there's abuse - it's easier to achieve system wide 'contagion' and force a financial system 'bail-out'. We burn the investors, and originating Province instead. A scottish thing. SD Have you asked yourself why the stress test was brought in? I'll tell you. It's because they found out that mortgage fraud is a serious problem in Canada. There is a reason why CMHC is asking the CRA for people's incomes now. https://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/mortgages/exclusive-canada-housing-agency-pushes-for-better-income-checks-to-catch-fraud. It's because its very easy in Canada to lie about your income and most mortgages brokers out there get paid on volume so they don't care whether you can really afford the house or not. Many people were doing this. The OSC and OSFI were tipped off by whistleblowers about the mortgage fraud going on at Home Capital a year and a half before shit hit the fan. They sat on the information and did absolutely nothing. They only acted on it when the information was leaked to the Globe and Mail and it was published in an article. Is that good oversight to you? Now, even today, most people think Home Capital was a short and distort lol and the reason they do is because OSFI doesn't give the information to the market. The only way you would know this is if you knew an OSC/OSFI employee or someone who left Home Capital, which is how I know. The CMHC knew Home Capital was a problem. They knew there was a lot of fraudulent mortgages pumped into CMHC but even they did nothing. They kept approving them. Not sure how that is good oversight? Things don't get done on the frontpage of the newspaper in Canada and you will never hear when there is a issue in the financial world unless it is leaked. The reason for this is because OSFI believes that our financial system is small and because it is small, our system can collapse a lot easier. If one bank goes down in Canada, were fucked. If one bank in California goes down, doesn't mean the US banking system goes down. Now, you can argue whether this is the right way to do it or not but I believe all information should be given to the market so people can make informed decisions. People were going long home capital thinking it's short and distort and I don't blame them because how would they know? It wasn't short and distort, there was serious fraud going on there. Home Capital is just one example where mortgage fraud is a problem. There are others but the market doesn't know about them yet. You will find out when this cycle ends. The other major problem in Canada is money laundering. The money laundering departments of all FI's in Canada are dog shit. I'm not sure why they even have these departments because the employees in them don't do anything. And I'm talking about the big banks, not casinos in BC. The regulators know about this but don't do anything lol. Even the compliance departments at most banks are a mess. They're mostly country clubs. The stress test was way too late. That should have been brought in years ago but I'm glad they did it and I hope they get even more strict. They waited way too long. Just for completeness ... Yes Home Capital had mortgage fraud. But the possibility of mortgage fraud is part and parcel of the morgage issuing process, every issuer is exposed to it, and how much of it there is in the given FI is controlled by the FI's management. When the FI's management isn't acting to contain it, you get whistleblowers. A very good thing. Home Capital was a big fish in a niche business, but the proportion of their issued morgages compared to all mortgages issued in Canada was small (<5%). A problem for Home Capital, but not a big enough problem to immediately bring down the Canadian financial system. The smart response is to publicly do nothing, privately investigate system wide, quantify and develop potential solutions, 'sniff test' against the major players, THEN make an announcement. But to the whistleblower nothing seems to be happening. Yes Home Capital was a problem - but it was defused very elegantly. C-Suite changes, broker network changes, standby pension fund & 'others' investment , tighening of mortgage issuance criteria, and a great many employees jobs saved. Employees that would lose their livelihoods, yet had nothing to do with it - they just worked for the wrong FI. That didn't just 'happen', it was planned. FI stress testing is an on-going quarterly (or more) process, than has gone on for decades. The tests are done by both the FI, the regulator, and 3rd parties in other jurisdictions. All the people involved know their stuff, know how to 'hide' the undesirable, and serve as a check on each other. You might be able to beat them, but you have to be extremely good. Of course good analytics don't mean anything, if you can 'politic' your way out instead. Much harder to do in Canada versus the US, as it's a much more 'one-sided' conversation. There's 'flexibility' but you'll do as you're told, when you're told. Or we'll find someone else. Grating to a US audience but perfectly in-line with the scottish 'clan' system (mafiosi in skirts ;)) of Canadian banking. Hence what happened in the US is not really comparable. SD

SD - can you elaborate when you say sound regulatory oversight? As someone who works in the compliance world, I think the regulatory oversight in Canada is a joke. What makes you say that the regulators do a good job in Canada? In Canada. The vast majority of mortgages are issued by federal FI's regulated by OSFI, working closely with the BOC and provincial regulators. Financial stability is maintained by OSFI /BoC stress testing FI capital against various scenarios, and changing the rules as required (new mortgagers passing a 200 bp stess test before the morgage is issued). You do as you're told, when you're told, as your federal FI operates at the 'pleasure of her majesty'. A Provincial FI is subject only to the rules of the Province, usually a lot less strict. But if the Provincial FI is selling mortgages to others outside of the Province, there will be an OSFI 'overlay'. So long as a Province 'X' FI meets local requirements it can originate a mortgage in Province 'X'. It can re-sell it to anyone it wants, but a Federal FI will have limits on how much of these Province 'X' mortgages it can hold (originate or purchase). Hence you can originate as much dog-sh1te as you want, but you need an other than federal regulated FI to buy the bulk of those mortgages. So you securitize what you couldn't sell, and it becomes the mortgage investors problem - not that of the Canadian financial system. The US doesn't have anywhere near this crisp a level of seperation. So when there's abuse - it's easier to achieve system wide 'contagion' and force a financial system 'bail-out'. We burn the investors, and originating Province instead. A scottish thing. SD

Keep in mind that Canadian RE shares little simlarity with the US. Loan structure, recourse/non-recourse, regulatory oversight, and a host of other things are completely different. Hence, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Yes they are both fruits, but that's about it. SD

You would just get a smaller student population, and higher tuition cost. The fixed costs of running the university/college just divide over a smaller base, and it costs more to go to school. Our own thoughts are that the problem really isn't access to loans, it's the immaturity of students/parents at the time they are making these decisions. Hence, the practical solution may be to simply tie the loans to being older than 'X'. You're still free to make poor choices (freedom), but at least you'll do it with some 'real world' experience under your belt. ie: you've learnt the value of a buck. SD

You might want to think in terms of time horizon. < 1 year, 1-3 years, 4 years+, etc. With the escalating trade war; over the next year - all manufacturers are probably going to sell less than 'normal'. Hence downside earnings bias and the shares of all kinds of global, quality firms, available at less than expected prices. If you think that accummulating global job loss eventually forces adult discussion, the earnings bias is only temporary - and there should be signicant price gains as tariffs ease &/or are dialed back. The big unknown is timing - were control of the US senate to change hands in the midterms, most would expect a shortening; otherwise a lengthening. The US does have quite a few valid points, but Trump's toxicity makes it impossible to implement them. Hence medium term most would expect changes, but executed by different individuals. Anyones guess as to what they might be. Our own thoughts are that there will ultimately need to be another Roosevelt type 'new deal'. Fiscal stimulas in a big way to rebuild the roads, bridges, ports. pipelines. etc - that will require people. SD

This is just borrowers looking for anyone else to blame but themselves. Everybody else got a bail out, so I should to. Mom and dad have either refused (mortgage their house to pay off my debt, and get a job to pay for the mortgage), or don't have the means. Young and dumb is not an excuse, there is no 'undo' button in life. You f'ked up, hence you wear it; and have the rest of your working life to pay it off. You don't get to buy a house, you have your kids later (if at all), you don't get to live the same life-style as mom or dad, because you f'ked up - they did not. You get the rented shit-box, take the bus, and work two/more jobs until that debt is paid off - just as mom/dad had to do when they were your age. Bwah .... Every druggie blames their dealer for getting them hooked, every alchoholic blames the bar/store for making it 'too available', and every borrower blames their lender. Everybody else but them. Sure it sucks, but you made your own bed. That's life. SD

There's a difference between moving for short-term versus long-term benefits. Sure, with experience and connections you could make a lot more in the US than in Canada. But net of taxes, health care coverage, stress, widespread gun usage, and the xenophobia of US society - is it really worth it in the long term? Or is it better to BASE the family in Canada (long-term benefit), and simply travel to/from Canada for that work (short-term benefit)? If you want an amah to look after your young kids you're better off in Asia, simply because you will not earn enough to afford the same thing in a Canada or a US. Hence the young person who moved for the money (short-term), moves home in middle-age; and is really a MIGRANT versus an IMMIGRANT. Not what a young person wants to hear. The only 'short-cut' is family/friends helping you out in the new country with shelter and job; otherwise you grind it out, the same as everyone else. Again - not what a young person accustomed to instant gratification, wants to hear. There are more jobs for young people in Canada, than there are young people; we just don't like what they pay, what's involved, or that they are dead-end. Your choices are to either make your own (better) job, vote with your feet, or put up with it as a means to an end. Nothing wrong in any of that. SD

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