Cardboard

Problem with nukes are these spent fuel rods pools. And even after they cool down enough, it remains radioactive for 1,000`s of years. I was watching some documentaries on that topic on PBS not long ago and some "new" underground facility in New Mexico. They were trying to figure out how to "identify" the site for the next 1,000 years. Makes you really think! Cardboard

No doubt that a lot of past mistakes have been made. With year end financials, more write-offs on their investments is a possibility. However, even after assuming drastic further write-offs, the preferreds remain well protected IMO and a very attractive security out there especially the DC.PR.D. As of September 30, they mentioned $14.23/share of net asset value or around $900 million that would have to be eroded before par on the preferreds would be impacted. Carboard

It is a very interesting topic Gregmal. I think that the solution is to sell, sell, sell as soon as you see smoke with an investment or whenever the thesis is challenged, you observe an unexplained miss, bad management decision, etc. As value investors we tend to anchor and that is a killer. You bought an investment that was cheap, something wrong happens and it drops say 20% and we stick around thinking that it got cheaper and this shall pass. Then usually things go from bad to worst. That is something that I am not good at by the way but, need to learn. Cardboard

"The funniest thing in the world to me is that the tech bubble people were right, just ahead of their time." No, they were not right! Thousands of these have disappeared, lost over 90% of their value, only a very few percentage have survived or delivered any return to their shareholders. Even large ones that did survive including Cisco, Intel and Yahoo show a negative return since that time. Even mighty Microsoft is only up 11% since its peak over 17 years ago! Sure there is Amazon which you are so proud of and is up 8.8 times over that period or a whopping 13.5% a year but, you should not make a general statement based on one company that by the way has never generated profits in any kind of way to justify its valuation vs a Google for example. Bottom line is that you should not ignore valuation. When things get pricey or hard to value, history is not kind. Cardboard

Where you work, if they have not made the investments yet to replace them it is because the robots would be too expensive, inflexible (can't be fired). It is a simple cost savings equation. Or your company is inefficient. And in the plant that I used to work in, while technicians performed repetitive tasks most of the time, it is really when the machine had trouble that they would become very valuable: troubleshooting, performing repairs on the spot, etc. When a task was purely repetitive a robot or machine was there already to do it. It is actually expensive to have humans do repetitive tasks because they are not as fast and get hurt which cost a lot of money. While I have no doubt that many jobs will be replaced in coming years this is not a new phenomenon as automation has been happening for decades. The question is how fast can robot become cheaper and as multi-tasking, smart as regular humans? I think that is a long way out. For example, a plane is already able to take-off, travel and land on its own without a pilot intervention since many years. Why do we still have two guys sitting in the cockpit? Maybe that there is a lot of low hanging fruits in the transportation industry with automated cars and trucks but, looking at what happened with airplanes or even trains (the thing drives on rails!), I am not so sure about timing. Cardboard

There are a few precedents for it or where debentureholders were offered less than par. It requires a vote with 2/3 approval. An offer to extend maturity could also be made. The way minority shareholders have been dealt with in this offer, I would not expect a par offer on these. While true that one could argue that the shares were near worthless and that they have conducted an independent fair value analysis, relative to market price it is very harsh treatment. If they were to offer 75% of par, I doubt it would be turned down considering the situation and how much below that they trade. Another interesting factor is that the secured debentures held by Claivest come to maturity before these. Could that be used to squeeze the unsecured debentures? Can't be repaid at maturity, threaten to call a default and negotiate an offer for the unsecureds? Moreover, the unsecured debentures were amended in November 2014 to allow for Clairvest to expand its ownership beyond 50% without triggering a change of control provision. So this is no longer a potential provision on this take-over to force redemption. And without public shares, these are not really convertible anymore... I wonder what is the larger game plan by buying remaining shares now? Cardboard

Still saving 15-20% on my favorite hobby buying elsewhere and at least 10% elsewhere on other purchases but, carry on... Keep enriching that Bozos. Cardboard

You just bought one of the biggest scam of all times. While the Internet is one mega department store, I can't recall the last time that I bought anything from Scamzon. So many other places to buy cheaper it is crazy. Other than maybe for books. Lol! A $400 to $500 billion book store. Lol! Cardboard

Mnuchin on robots taking US jobs: 'It's not even on our radar screen ... 50-100 more years' away http://www.cnbc.com/id/104362666 A few on this board have diminished humans talking about singularity or other. They failed to recognize the power of human inventing, transforming, discovering. While I am getting drunk right now, I know that you are wrong. LOL

"You perfectly outline the dilemma facing first time buyers in Canada today. The recent past has taught that waiting was the wrong decision (and spectacularly so)." This is exactly the cause of the bubble. People do some logical math as some are here, they look around and at some point they think "what the heck?" and they jump in. When the cost of property taxes with insurance is higher than renting, you know that people are buying based on property appreciation and not common sense. Stop paying your municipal taxes for fun and then tell me if you are truly owning your home, condo or property. And I don't think that you will find a number on what makes sense or doesn't. It will likely go well above what the median income can afford for a variety of reasons including assets to back up purchases, shaddy loans, rich immigrants, 2nd home buying as investments, etc. However, I can guarantee you that the highest price will come when the last one wanting or be able to afford a home in a certain district will have bought. Cardboard

"Let’s see, if I’m working, I have the weekends, maybe, and a couple of hours every evening in which I spend money. But when if I am retired, essentially 100% of my time is leisure so I have 2 or 3 times the amount of time in which to spend money. And people think they will spend less money when they retire? That's like when I'm fully invested and the market tanks and my broker tries to tell me its really good news because its a 'buying opportunity'." When you are retired, you normally don't have to pay for a mortgage, your car should put on less milleage, your kids are gone and the energy that you had at 30 or 40 years old is much less hence with it goes the appetite for partying, spending, etc. It is probably a generalistic way to see things but, I don't think it is too far from reality. If you are a saver at a young age, what are the odds that you will totally drop that habit as you get older and turn into a massive spender? Regarding OAS, I never counted on it. Nor CPP for that matter. If you save a lot, continue spending time on this website as you are, then your returns should be pretty satisfactory over time even if one day you decided to stop managing your own funds and go the index route. The pile should get really large in your accounts to take care of the rest without having to rely on government programs. Still believe that the RRSP should provide you with more wealth at the end for the same dollar saved vs non-registered accounts assuming that you are using the same investing method for both. While I hear you regarding the treatment of capital gains vs say interest income, I think you need to think instead of how bad it would be if they were treated equivalent in non-registered accounts? Cardboard

Totally disagree with you on RRSP's. You get an immediate full tax deduction on any money that you put in. So on a DCF over decades that is worth a lot. Then all the money inside the RRSP can compound tax free for decades. If you have a decent rate of return, this is a huge advantage. For example, Seymour Schulich has accummulated something like $250 million in his account. Sure you will be taxed as income when you take it out but, you can use to your advantage the progressive tax system to lower your tax rate. And tax rates overall have not moved much over a very long period of time and they can't keep on moving higher since eventually the government gets less money with higher tax rates. To push it to the extreme, if tax rates are 100%, government revenue goes to $0. Moreover, when you get to the point of pulling money out of your RRSP, you will likely not need as much funds as you need now. And if you want to make donations with these funds, it will be a taxable deduction. TFSA's are great too since money also compounds tax free. The difference is that you don't obtain a tax benefit when you put money in and there is no tax when you take money out. Either way, I don't see how one is penalized from investing in these vehicles vs trying to save and compound money in non-registered accounts. Cardboard

It truly is as simple as that. You will have less capital to deploy on your next profitable sale. And less capital deployed into profitable ventures in the system leads to less wealth for the country overtime. The current system is fair and logical and glad that you recognized that the taxation of capital gains vs other investment incomes is aligned to the risk curve. It is also aligned with job creation and was designed by a very smart Liberal or Paul Martin 17 years ago. Canada has done very well in that period. It wasn't the only factor but, it surely did contribute. Some may remember the terrible recession of the early 90's, large pension and budget deficits, Canadian dollar at $0.60 to the USD, Canadian trained doctors (read subsidized) leaving in large number for the States, GST, etc. This was not our finest moment. So why messing up with something that works right now? There has to be other levers? And many loopholes will remain available to the truly rich even if this is raised. So it is going to be the middle and upper middle class that will end up suffering the most from this or people investing their savings in the system and already paying high tax rates on their salaries. Cardboard

"Low taxes on the rich are often predicated on the assumption that the economy that generated the returns, and very likely assisted in generating those returns, will eventually see some benefit. However, if you keep people's taxes really low and they accumulate a lot of wealth, and then pack up and leave in retirement, the tax jurisdiction basically lost its opportunity." Keep the system fair and honest and they will stay. That is one of the problems with the Left: impatience. They want to get their hands on that money right now to distribute it as they see fit. Have you ever asked yourself, where is Rockefeller's money? And the Vanderbilt's? It is mostly all gone. All gone back into society in one way or another. Because you don't take it with you. And the ones after you, charities, governments will deploy it in one way or another. So if taxes are raised on capital gains, you will have less to reinvest on your next profitable sale. And it will be the same for all entrepreneurs, real estate developers, all people who put money to work in the economy. A bigger chunk will go to the government who will spend it on small to no return investments. Over time, the country will have less wealth than it would have had and all its citizens will be poorer. It is as simple as that. Cardboard

Again some minimizing the impact of higher taxes... Has to be a positive and favour investment in Canada, right? Are these guys truly investors? What about the U.S., Belgium? How many businesses and business people have left France to go next door because of this mantra of "let`s punish the rich!"? Unreal! Capital gains only arise because someone has taken a fair amount of risk to earn them. There is no guarantee and a wipe-out is always possible. The current tax structure made sense with interest being the highest taxed, then Canadian dividends (to favour Canadian investment vs other dividends), then capital gains. It really goes after the risk/reward chart when you think about it. If you increase taxes on capital gains, then you add a cost to the equation or reduce reward. There is no way around it while the risk to earn said gains remains the same. And it does apply to bonds too since a capital gain only arise when you buy bonds under par (risky) or if interest rates go in your direction. Cardboard

I have one security left where it could be worth doing and I could do a transfer before Wednesday between my corporation and myself using a tax election (article 85) and do the FMV or ACB after or similar to your suggestion. Could be even better than selling since it is not that liquid. This is not a big deal for me but, I was wondering if others had done some tax planning regarding that possibility.

I looked back in 2000 or the last time when the capital gain/loss tax inclusion rate was changed and it was on February 28. However, the tax documents indicate that the new inclusion rate started from that day on. It was said that the budget was announced in the afternoon of the 28th but, I could not find time of day. The 2017 budget will be announced on Wednesday at 16:00 or I would assume after markets are closed and a transaction made tomorrow would settle just prior. If the inclusion rate is changed and looking back at the 2000 example, will it apply to transactions made tomorrow assuming that the change is not retroactive? Cardboard

There is a very wide gap that has now formed in expected return between DC.PR.B and DC.PR.D. I was pointing out in early December that the DC.PR.B had really sold off and were quite attractive in the $13.50 range with a yield of 10.5%. Now they have rallied around 25% since that time and the yield has dropped to 8.5%. However, the DC.PR.D have moved up by only about 13% since that point and now still yield 8.15% which is the highest floater that I know of. What is interesting is that if you assume conversion into the "B"'s in September 2019, the dividend distribution from the "D"'s over a 5 year period plus the appreciation to catch up to the "B"'s represents an annual yield of 12.5%. That is a very wide spread between fixed rate reset preferreds and floaters which on my screen vary from 0.5% to 1.9% using the same math. Cardboard

"We debate taking kids to the doctor because of the cost. Every visit is a $150 hit. The good news is we've started to learn how to diagnose things at home and try home remedies first. No sense in paying a doctor unless you need to" This is the ingredient missing with a system like we have in Canada. I have nothing against providing healthcare to the less fortunate but, try to keep that self responsibility part. Cardboard

Really shows the problem with any form of entitlement. Once a dog has a bone in his mouth, if you remove it, he will bite you. Cardboard

This is a bubble and is going to pop. There are too many similarities with other bubbles for this one to not be one or where they seem to be going on forever despite headwinds and all of a sudden, bam! You have tighter requirements on mortgages: money down, life of mortgage, etc. You have restrictions on foreign ownership. You have Revenue Canada having added a special page this year on their Schedule 3 (capital gains) specifically to deal with home flipping. You have an economy that is doing decent with interest rates going up South of the border and how we don't follow eventually? These are all recently new developments that should put the brakes on Canadian housing prices from rising but, they are not in Toronto and Vancouver yet. Cardboard

"Some posters here who did not agree with some points made were called a "Dem puppet" or "leftist demagogue". Funny Hawks that you do not point out the other insults. How do you call this? "Those 1,000+ posts can't be all logical fallacies, false equivalencies and reality distortion." "When you point out the gaping holes in Rat and Cardboard's arguments, they look foolish." All I am asking for is data. Statistical evidence indicating that since Trump things have really taken a turn for the worst at the border in terms of uncalled for detention and rejection since that is what you guys are claiming. If you guys are that superior in your arguments as some are claiming to be, then you should have no problem producing this evidence. And no, highlighting from the media the case of two to three people having been detained, questioned does not count since I could give you that many that have had their cell searched, detained for hours for no apparent reason other than the officer suspecting that they were working in the U.S. without paperwork well before this last election. Cardboard

They probably look at your arguments too and realize that you are a leftist demagogue. Cardboard

"Cardboard Your obvious bias is coming thru time and time again. I'm trying to post real stories from real people who have never experienced such rejections, humiliation, etc in their lives. And they have travelled to and from the U.S. many times. The Australian childrens author visited your country 116 times under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but has never seen anything like this. And you think all Presidents act like Trump. The world disagrees with you." "Sorry you cannot see your society is changing rapidly and maybe not for the good. The rest of the world is watching and is worried." It is obvious who is biased, trying to discredit me and it is obvious that you are either ignoring or relying purely on facts from the media. I find that very curious for someone who claims to have been travelling a lot as stories like these are not new at all. What is new once again is that they never have been reported by the media. Now if you have facts, data, statistics, indicating that there has been more detention, rejections the day after Trump took over then we may have a discussion. Other than that, I realize that you have not realized one crucial thing with the media or that they report endlessly about one specific topic after one tragedy or incident has occured. It often lasts 3 to 6 months then after that, you never hear about it again. Cardboard

Hawks calls me biased... LOL. You have never heard of people turned away at the U.S. border before Trump for dubious reasons??? One agent even questioned me about details of a work visa that I had 17 years earlier on a family trip!!! Did you ever travel to the U.S. or Europe? The biggest joke is the EU customs. First time I travelled there years ago there is that line for EU Nationals which is a revolving door then there is that Non-EU line where they make you wait a little longer but, I only recall one agent in my dozen of trips ever asking me the purpose of my trip. I always wondered if it was a language barrier thing. "Cause God knows when someone think German of Japanese border guards they don't picture warm and cuddly." So I will take the German custom agent all day long before U.S. custom agent. I don't like questioning from the latter but, at least they do their job. Some are definitely better than others like in all sphere of society but, it is always an experience that you are happy to be done with. Cardboard