SharperDingaan

Sadly, I'm nowhere near as eloquent as James Joyce! Just to throw some random numbers out ... Start at 1400 pre-announcement. Short 1,000 shares, long 10 out-of-the-money puts at 1300, publish report, media tour Drive the price < 1300 by expiry date. Have the 1,000 shares assigned, off exchange. Long 20 calls between 1300 and 1400. AR is announced, squeeze the shorty! Price moves to 1500, sell the 20 calls at 1500, return the 1,000 shares to the lender. Buy today at 1260. Sell at 1500 post AR (240 profit), buy back at 1260 on MW round-2 (240 profit). MW eventually walks away, shares sold for 1500 (240 profit). Total gain of 720 on a 1260 investment is 57%. If you only capture 2/3 of this ... about a 38% return. Just one of many possibilities ..... SD

Only things I would add: FFH does a lot of everyday sophisticated transactions, it does them within the complicated insurance wrapper, and it records all this using IFRS accounting. No big deal to understand for the CPA's, CFA's of the world with deep knowledge in both capital markets and insurance; but not so much for the lay person, or those new to 'investing'. When it seems like a black box, and most shareholders don't fully understand it, they are inherently vulnerable to negative 'manipulation'. Quite agree; FFH is a power house today, and they've been to more than a few short selling rodeos. However it's also hard to imagine that MW wasn't aware that this would be a harder nut to crack; yet they still choose to try it? If they have miscalculated, all they can do is bluff through successive rounds; the only question is how much juice can be squeezed out of MW before they fold. Always hopeful! SD

I hear you; thing is, MW will still be there after the AR is released and now it'll just be a sale from a higher price. As did some others, we opened a very modest long position this morning after it became clear that round 1 of the MW attack was failing, ideally to resell after the AR release. Thereafter, hopefully MW isn't completely useless, and we get to buy those shares back again later at a lower price. FFH is a solid company, but the reality is that its complexity also makes it vulnerable to this. It survives these attacks primarily because this board exists; and the great many very experienced people who contribute to it in live time, quickly call BS when they see it. Were this a more 'normal' internet board, round 1 of this attack would probably have been more successful. SD

Hopefully, a good $300+/share on the turn before any option/margin leverage! We would also be very surprised if MW didn't intend to exercise on existing options, as the mechanism by which to raise the shares to repay the short loans; plus accumulate some additional - offered for a buyback. We also expect them to have used the drop to lay in a stack of out-of-the-money calls; FFH buys in the stock at a price well < 1401, MW walks away, the price quickly returns > 1401 & all those calls go deep in the money. .... Now of course, if an enterprising lad had learnt from ericopoly, and also knew how to work this trick! Interesting times SD

Folks, the reality is that FFH is going to go a good bit lower before this is all over. Simply do a swing trade, buy your stock back later at the lower price, and take your cash difference off the table. MW drives the share price down; FFH does a share buyback at below book, and books both a gain on cancellation, and a higher EPS. SD

DOHA/SINGAPORE, Jan 15 (Reuters) - QatarEnergy, the world's second largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, has stopped sending tankers via the Red Sea although production continues, a senior source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Monday. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/lng-tankers-held-up-over-weekend-following-us-uk-strikes-houthis-data-2024-01-15/ Old news ... however that round trip that used to take 40 days including on/off loading, now takes roughly 58 days inclusive. Hence, to move that same amount of LNG in the same 40 days now requires 45% more LNG tanker capacity (58/40 -1)... and it isn't available. Squeeze. The Houthis have been getting pounded for weeks now, yet the drones keep coming; Hamas has been pounded for months ... yet the rockets still fly. Have to think the interventions are not going according to 'plan', and that the US export decision is a precaution against a tanker sinking. Obviously, we hope for the best; but if Uncle Sam is taking precautions .... it would be foolish to ignore the message. SD

Great to see you back! SD

You might want to consider why the US wants the natty kept in the US. The Ukraine has successfully begun targeting the Russian oil facilities, there are chronic labour shortages in large parts of Russia, Chinese banking facilities are being restricted, and Russia has a lot of stranded oil in the pacific that they have been unable to move. Were someone to quietly give the Ukrainians the right weaponry to 'decommission' key parts of the Nordstrom gas collection network, there would be a lot of very happy people. Europe already has the gas in storage to manage the disruption, there's a surplus of the stuff, and the ME already has much of the new production coming on line. Most would react negatively were the US to ship whatever it could, versus keep it at home, and prices down because of it. Putin recently put feelers out to negotiate an end the war. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/putin-signals-washington-ready-talks-225000203.html SD

When you could get BB at its lowest price in 21 years, we're pretty sure it is a cigar butt! Just not the 'traditional' kind. SD

The 'generals' problem goes way back, and was the same problem whether you were a Byzantine or a Mongol; it was just 're-branded' by computer science and the 'solution' integrated into a programmable algorithm. Prior to that, the solution had essentially been one of becoming a 'master' at playing chess (ie: a human algorithm). The reality of course is that we see the 'obvious' every day, and may even recognise the logical outcome; but don't accept the conclusion. If others don't also see it (acceptance), we must be wrong, therefore move on; a well known anomaly than many a propagandist has exploited. Look through the Jan-Mar business newspaper in your community from 2 years ago. Pick a few of the negative articles (ie: Blackberry), and assume you had done the opposite of the spin being sold. Compare the price today (2yr), and the price a year ago (1yr), to what the price was when the article came out. Repeat the test on various other dates, going further back in time, and plot the results. You have essentially quantified how much this bias is costing you SD

Every cigar butt is different, there is no 'formula'. Bought a whack of Blackberry yesterday at a ridiculous price; which, according to the market .... is utter dogsh1te All that you really had to do, was realize that as soon as the convertible sold; most of the face value would immediately be shorted against the common .... poor sentiment, and the sudden rush of selling would do the rest. Blackberry isn't going under tomorrow - if it's at CAD 6 by Feb next year, we're up 50%+. Then add in that a lot of people will make a great deal of money if the proposed split happens ... and our catalyst is greed. To quote some iconic phrases from 'Wall Street' .... Greed is good! Greed works! Better than the standard cigar butt formula. SD

The original paper was published October 2008, and the Estonia Ministry of Justice was using it in 2012; have to think the authors went home, and that this "boating accident" was around 2012/2013. Now adults, with first kids arriving, it is entirely in keeping with it being a last nod to the cypherpunk ethos that created them. As it should be: unless you were there, or know those who were, there is no way of knowing whether it actually occurred or not. If it did, grand-pa has a hell of a story to tell the grand-kids. If it did not, it still remains a great story. I'd prefer to give it to grand-pa. SD

Only two people know the keys to a wallet; the owner, and whoever issued them the keys. It's straightforward to trace money flow to a wallet; 100% identification of the user requires more work. Over time, either the issuer gives up the keys (BK, takeover, persuasion, etc.), or the owner (collateral on a derivative/loan, persuasion, etc.). If the wallet has a lot of flow in/out you can get a pretty good idea as to the owner, but if its essentially dormant .. not so much. SD

The story goes that some folks went for an evening cruise on the Baltic. Supposedly the very early stage miners, BTC mining for them had just been the cool 'new' thing at the time; but they were now all moving on, and their wallets contained thousands of BTC. The US was closing down the silk road, was one of the largest holders of BTC, and there was a need for a graceful way 'out'. The various digital keys got put on USB sticks, and to the clink of champagne glasses, all the sticks were dropped into the sea; salt water ensuring non recovery of the keys, no matter the temptation. SD

In theory only the entity putting up the sh1tecoin, and Tether staking BTC against it ... know who is involved; the Tether/BTC leg of the stable coin has no idea. Additionally; should the need arise, it's a lot easier for Tether (and/or its principals) to experience an accident ... and for the staking records to conveniently 'disappear'. Most of this is also under Chinese control ... with very different rules, applied at different levels; the stealing is straight-forward, the living afterwards ... not so much. Macau is a small place. SD

There's the principal residence (where you live), and the vacation home. For most people, a principal residence of 1,300-1,800 square feet in an accessible location, is more than adequate; thereafter, its primarily lifestyle choice. The privileged, also have vacation homes that are primarily investments (yesterdays fishing shack on remote lakefront, rebuilt into today's mansion with dock/motorboat on a busier lakefront). The issue for many, is inability to separate 'residence' from 'investment'. The reality is that a residence is just shelter; safe, dry, well serviced/maintained, comfortable, and always there whether it be boom or bust. Paying the mortgage off before retirement is just shelter in a different form; ability to afford the house while in retirement, and afford the nursing home when the time comes (house sold to pay the bills). 'Investment' has nothing to do with it. Of course, nothing prevents housing from also being a rental income investment; a common retirement income practice all around the world. The big difference is that it is typically not your own residence, and while you're living in it; before AirBnB the widow renting rooms out in the family home, was called the 'rooming house' lady. That rental income investment is almost always another property, and those properties could be anywhere, with ownership in many forms. In most neighbourhoods, many a millionaire lives very modestly, and for all appearances is much like any other Joe. The difference is usually just a better neighbourhood, a better car (leased) that is never more than 'X' years old, a better maintained lawn/garden/driveway through summer/winter, and maybe a few more lights outside over festive seasons. Maybe a mansion, and a bigger garage, if multiple generations are living in it. In a better apartment building, maybe you'll just see them getting off at a different floor, or getting in/out of a better car. Different strokes. SD

Agreed re the 'framing' issue; but the reality is that owning a whole BTC-ETF unit is a much easier 'sell', than owning a fraction of a BTC (as 'x' number of Satoshi). While functionally there is not much difference ... it's night vs day at the market level. Think 3 markets; (1) The techie preferring to stay in 'cryptoland' (BTC, Satoshi, Wallets, Networks, etc.); (2) Institutions trading the option/futures market, creating the ETF's, creating the markets themselves (carbon trade), custodianship, etc; (3) Joe Sixpack who just wants cheap no-think trading sardines on BTC/crypto in general. Joe Sixpack can now do his thing; but one has to think (in relative terms), there isn't going to be much crossing of 'lanes' into the techie lane. The Satoshi market is essentially a 3rd level application that will come into play once all the 21M BTC have been issued (when buyer/seller have to pay the miner in Satoshi). Lots of ways this could go, but the floor price of a BTC will be 100M x the price of a Satoshi. We live in interesting times. SD

Coinbase custodianship is a non-issue. Assume that a Coinbase today, has a very generous 60% of the current BTC custodian market, measured as the area of a medium pizza. Mainstream BTC-ETF's get created all across the US, Europe, Asia, S America, ME, etc => the pizza grows into an XXXL, and institutions primarily custodian with their existing custodians - to whom BTC, ETH, etc. is just another security. Coinbase ends up with a small fraction of the XXXL pizza, and we have multiple very capable custodians reducing the risk for everyone. BTC-ETFs are simply a 2nd level application, that both gets around the 21M BTC limit, and the high costs of transacting directly . Buy BTC directly and there are only 21M; buy BTC-ETF's that buy up the 21M BTC, and there are as many units as the BTC-ETFs collectively choose to issue. A BTC-ETF that issues 1,000 units per 1 BTC, reduces the price/unit to USD 4.70 vs USD 47,000 => cheaper prices, increasing demand for the BTC-ETF, increasing demand for BTC itself => raising the price of BTC. Whales transfer beneficial ownership of BTC to BTC-ETFs via a derivative, a copy of which the custodian holds (and the regulator can see). BTC inflation protection remains (max 21M), as it is independent of the number of units the BTC-ETF issues (21 Billion+?). No change to existing crypto wallets/exchanges etc, other than economic cost/benefit of continued participation. And continued holding of that existing wallet? => now based almost entirely on its intrinsic value to its owner Very elegant solution. SD

Lot of very twisted logic in this article. Every day, BTC demonstrates that its fundamental value is > 0; it just isn’t valued as the PV of future cashflows. However much we might like it to be. Miners are incentivized to borrow against their holdings, not sell them. All else equal the unrealized gain from progressive halving’s, offset the realized interest expense. Over time miners collectively accumulate a large enough % of total BTC, to ensure they are part of whatever cartels may develop, in the post 21M BTC world. Miners are incentivized to transfer beneficial ownership via OTC derivatives and exchange traded options/futures; not sale of the BTC itself. The ‘float’ is purely paper BTC, and the speculators problem; the miner simply collects a premium and walks away until the BTC is returned at the end of the contract. Price as a function of volume vs float is valid; but its actual + paper BTC volume, vs actual + paper float. Perceived prospects driving volume and exchange traded net open interest driving float. Miners producing BTC, and hedging via sale of exchange traded options/futures; gains/losses settling in cash(vs BTC) every expiry. The reality of course is create a mania, and BTC should fly. We just need to keep in mind, that it doesn’t mean the mania has to occur all at once, and all on day 1! SD

Quite true, but the definition has changed a bit over the years. Today. the slaving is often voluntary, and called human trafficking; paying/borrowing from the smugglers to get you out, and owing them for life - seen as a better life. Bond the entire family, and it is in the smugglers interests to keep the collateral alive; the family drowns, nobody gets repaid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage SD

You might want to keep in mind that bonded labour remains widespread today, throughout the US. Every star 'under contract' to a sports team, entertainment organisation, as well as the various underlings in the organised crime trades, etc. 10M for 3 years at XYZ team, is the very definition of bonded labour. SD

There has always been racism; it's just called different names, and is simply what happens when humans collect. Whether it's called tribalism, apartheid, caste systems, class systems, or wealth inequality; it's the same thing, just practised different ways, and exists purely to 'rank' people within a group. I am advantaged in some way (independent of my own efforts), you aren't, so I'm better/worth more than you. I'm Israeli you're Palestinian. I'm white you're coloured. I'm Brahman you aren't. I'm high class you're a labourer. I'm an idiot but born stupid rich ... you're super smart but born dirt poor, etc. If you're on the bottom and virulent; it's f*** ****, and do something about it! If you're on the top and doing little to maintain your position .... riches to rags in 3 generations is a well trod path. However, allow the divisions to breathe (mix, travel, inter-marry, etc.), and evolutionary 'change' across the generations gets everyone the best of all worlds. Fear of change breeds resistance, and the more resistance, the more the political pendulum swings to the extremes. DEI, as is currently practised, is just a poorly executed attempt to accelerate change. Given the track-record, once has to think that the approach is due for a change. Rhodes was just another robber baron of his time; but whatever one thinks of them, it's hard to argue against their merit based approach. The big difference today is that there are many times more of them; scalability. SD

Activism has always been the same game; it's just the names and methods that change. It's a fashion statement, a way to piss off the establishment, a way to be one of the cool/hip kids, and a way to get laid every Saturday night! Not many activists make it past their early 30's .... once school is over, and the mortgages/kids start to arrive The reality is that all microbes have to successfully compete, and the more resilient they are the more anti-fragile they are. Handicap the virulent microbes (thumb on the scale) and you just get a thriving community of fragile cultures .. until some other virulent microbe shows up. Whereas 'do nothing' and you get natural evolution; harsh, but at the end of the day we all survive. Few dispute that 'thumb on the scale' alters opportunities; but most recognise that it's situation specific, and time limited. Women got the vote because they wouldn't put up with male pandering, and made it happen; DEI would have hurt them. Compensate a cultural genocide via 5-6 generations of positive DEI, to build a modern leadership (Canada's First Nations) is one thing... but do it 'forever', and it's just paternalism .... all over again. Rhodes would have been chuffed; if the new generations aren't aggressively biting the hand that feeds them, the donor must have been rubbish! To paraphrase Churchill, "Madam I might be drunk, but you're ugly; and in the morning I'll be sober!" SD

Harvard is simply doing what all political staffers do, protecting their caesar; in defending the tribe, right or wrong has little to do with it. No different to majority rule, if you don't like the decision; either put up with it and sing in tune from the same songbook, or leave - your choice. Most all within academia, aren't going to leave. Few dispute the merits of DEI; for most, execution is the issue. Go the 'all merit' route and you get incredible people, but not many; that was the purpose of the Rhodes and Beit Scholarships, etc. - find the best (whatever their colour, ethnicity, tribe/caste), send them to Oxford, train them up, and put them to work running the empire. Go the 'criteria' route and you get good people, but many more; i.e. niche vs volume business. Ultimately, money talks; most would expect the major funder's to be making some changes. Nothing prevents DEI from being executed simultaneously in both the 'merit' and 'criteria' routes, other than 'fear of change'. SD

Sleep with the dogs ... and you will get fleas; you buy quality 'cause it's a lot less work, more predictable, and less prone to fraud .... it does not mean no fraud and/or manipulation! Then keep in your head that this beloved nano cap is little more than a start-up which has run out of money; they couldn't meet 'angel' expectations, had to capital raise on speculative exchanges instead, and have to keep 'promoting' - in order to raise the new funds to prevent a financial collapse, once the money is spent. The best prospects are private; and they only go public when angels either want out now, or they need new funds to 'take the company to the next level', and bought out later (same angels, exiting later at higher valuations). If you insist on this approach, and are willing to put in the work, it's better to go with private limited partnerships. You're still a minority owner, and it will still be a local business (in its area), but you will have a lot better oversight as one of the operators ... vs simply as a passive investor. If you are sh1te at what you do, the end will come quicker, and you'll also 'move on' faster. Partnerships can be valuable, very refreshing, and a lot of fun; but they are also a lot of work ... and it needs to be worthwhile. They aren't liquid, you have to be good at what you do, and you have to like the people you work with. The responsibility of collectively coming up with the payroll every 2 weeks, separates the boys and girls very quickly. In the craft brewing business there are a lot of people who can make really good beer; but few who are really good at selling the stuff, and fewer still who are really good at the capital side of the business. It's typically regional, most everybody knows their counterparts, and largely an invitation only club. Different quality investments, different strokes. SD