Cardboard

It was expected but, I will miss Gronk :'( http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001024012/article/patriots-te-rob-gronkowski-announces-retirement

"Recession would occur with and without the Fed. " Sure but, no need to add fuel to the fire as they do each and every time! Never noticed that they never seem to think about the dollar strength, what copper says, what other currencies and interest rates are? "I personally like some volatility in the stock market. Another panik run this year would be great." Feels to me like the Fed is a tool for the ultra wealthy to actually accentuate these panics. Maybe to overthrow some administrations as well. Bilderberg comes to mind: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bilderberg-group-conspiracy-theories-secret-societies-new-world-order-alex-jones-a8377171.html Cardboard

Yup! Went from 2 rate hikes in 2019, to data based driven, to none whatsoever in 3 months. Then just before this latest decision goes on CBS 60 minutes to brag about himself and the rest of his academicians bunch. This entire Fed is a joke. Really have no clue and as I said previously never orchestrated a soft landing in their entire history. Cardboard

If you want to teach us something LC maybe you should get your act right: "This dude was raking in cash from his dental clinics." 'An Optometrist Who Beat The Odds To Become A Billionaire'

"I don't see what this is so hard for you to admit that there are serious holes in this article?" Exactly! This is an investment forum and we try to see what works? I also don't see why this is now being turned into jealousy, sins and deadly sins from self-proclaimed atheists? :o

Au contraire. Unlike the left, I am not jealous of billionaires and wanting to tax them to death. He has done well for himself and that is fine. However, I do look at their methods and see if there is something I can use in my life to improve my lot. So in essence, I have done what others have done in this thread or see if is truly a great investor and how to replicate? Unfortunately, I see nothing other than digging through patents, trying to find the next Microsoft at IPO, holding forever and plugging into it a much, much higher percentage than he did. Cardboard

Wow! This discussion is still going. Amazing! That guy definitely needs the last word... One thing that cannot be disputed is that the guy is a terrible capital allocator. Returns have been abnormally poor, even for someone who has spent and given a lot of money. Plus, the guy disclosed that he used margin. If you do that, you are no cash or bond investor or conservative investor. You do that to juice up returns. So the guy likes to make money, a lot. That would indicate almost everything but, someone who has a balanced portfolio. And to hold on things forever does not take any kind of genius investor either. I know many people like that: they hold to both winners and losers forever. Cardboard

If you want to level the playing field why not first having everyone trade under the same rules? In similar increments for example? I can't enter a trade in 1/2 cent for most stocks or priced above $0.50. However, I can never do 1/4 of a cent while the big boys can. They do thousands of a cent! No more bid and ask spread of 1/8? LOL! In Canada, we even have a manipulative system or trades going through multiple exchanges while only TSX trades are recorded on the tape for close. Works wonder to manipulate charts and technicals. It is not more money that is needed but, better rules.

and raising government revenue. Never about solving true problems. I did put this into the General Section since I think all these policies will really start to affect all of us no matter where you stand in the political spectrum. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-tax-wall-street-211353714.html We already pay a SEC fee on every sale in the U.S. to go after bad actors. How much more is needed to solve that problem of enforcement? My view is that much more severe penalties surrounding insider trading are needed. Not more money for agencies or the government. And what about going after those who front run us when we buy something? I don't think that more money will address that either. Cardboard

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/business/airlines-climate-change-emissions/index.html I wonder how Buffett has priced in the risk of climate change and incoming crazy politicians such as AOC into his relatively important airline investments? I sense that there will be a strong movement to demonize air travelling. Could this lead people to travel less? For example, corporations have used 911 and corresponding higher fares and travel time to encourage less air travel and greater use of conference calls. My experience is that corporations slowed down air travel for a while then, when the economy got better, they pretty much returned to same or higher level. Could it be different this time around? What about leisure travel? Cardboard

A 10% efficient storage system will mean that 90% of what was produced has been lost. It means that you will need 9 times more renewable generating capacity to end up with the same output as you would with the 90% efficient system. That is a lot of additional c/kWh!!! I get the point but, your example is out of whack.

60% or less + maybe 5 to 10% from your own article what does that give you? A solid 70-80%? I will say it again, it is impossible. Maybe in a lab but, not in real life. Then we have not even got into AC vs DC, need to transform power up or down, power line losses, breakdown/maintenance. It is like these numbers being published by this Bill Gross guy, are they correct? Do they include all costs and a reasonable safety factor? If you are a promotter or CEO or salesman will you publish best case or base case? What about rounding? I am not saying this is all crap. I mentioned that the crane idea is much more efficient. It is actually very clever. However, I am saying that they are likely embellished numbers by people selling their ideas or not different at all from all corporate presentations. Greed is good you know?

Fuzzy napkin math heh? "The roundtrip efficiency (electricity generated divided by the electricity used to pump water) of facilities with older designs may be lower than 60%, while a state-of-the-art PHES system may achieve over 80% efficiency." "Many existing PHES stations may increase capacity by (15-20)% and efficiency by (5-10)%. Must be some fuzzy new fluid mechanics theory and electric motor efficiency that may deliver unheard of efficiencies. ::) Cardboard

"From looking at other similar energy storage solutions like pumped hydro the efficiency usually runs in the 70-80% range. So in essence they're taking surplus power generated by solar/wind when it is "free" from the grid and are able to return somewhere in the range of 75% of that back to the grid. I'd expect this to have a similar efficiency, maybe somewhat higher say 85%." On pumped hydro, 70-80% efficiency is impossible IMO. You have energy that you want to store, you pump water up the hill with a pump and electric motor. Right there you lose around 25% (motor loss of around 5% and pump loss of around 20%). Then you take that water back down in a pipe to generate electricity with a generator. So you have energy lost as it flows down the pipe or friction loss along with efficiency loss of the generator. This is probably another 30%. So 0.75 x 0.70 = 52.5% efficiency. On the other hand, this block lifting idea is much more efficient since you lose energy when you lift the block (motor loss + friction in pulleys/cables) and lose some again as you drop it back down (generator loss + friction in pulleys/cable). This is probably 80% efficient unless I am missing something. Cardboard

"When wind and solar are price competitive with fossil fuel, but have the added benefit of (1) being less pollutive, and (2) have a longer future runway of efficiency improvements, why are we continuing to push for fossil fuel investment? " They are not price competitive. Not until the storage issue is fixed or see the Bill Gross presentation on this website. And who is pushing for fossil fuel investment may I ask? What I see is a self-sustaining industry capable to attract capital without pushing anyone. When it is no longer capable to generate proper returns, and it is coming, it will shrink on its own. Instead what we have are ideologists pushing to halt fossil fuel investment. Cardboard

It is really the problem with this climate change discussion or lack thereof and Clutch's response to Spekulatius was bang on. The guy in that video is a Nobel Laureate or a heck of a lot smarter than I am along with most if not all posters on this board. He does bring interesting facts that do require further research IMO. Ask yourself this question: why would one trust every word from Al Gore but, ignore every word from a recognized scientist? Money trail you said??? The concept of global warming is rather simple to understand and I am not denying it. However, I am severely questioning speed of occurence and this sense of immediate doom and gloom about it. New innovations are coming along fast and I think will make this race for wind, solar and storage look pretty stupid shortly. Humans have always searched for new ways to harvest energy and it won't change. We also always knew that we would eventually run out of cheap fossil fuels and that something needed to be done. At the rate we are consuming and still ramping up, in 50 years it is more or less over. You don't need to slow down the economy or reduce births to get to a better place. Alarmists such as AOC will cause much more harm than good in this transition that will take place no matter what. Cardboard

Obviously you told your son to completely avoid reading the material. Just in case that some facts could have shaken some belief or be worth more study. Sacrilege to your religion. Cardboard

Cardboard

What is a good investor? In my book, you need to make 15% a year or double your portfolio every 5 years. What is a great investor? 20%+/year If you are not in these ranges, you are basically a very average investor. This is the cold hard truth. If you are beating the indexes by only 1 or 2% you are wasting your time investing unless that is your hobby. Some will respond that beating the index by 1 or 2% over long periods of time amounts to a lot more wealth. Sure. But, you are so close to the average that we can't tell if you are truly outperforming. Only 1 bad year is enough to wipe out any advantage. Moreover you have to deal with taxes as any investor delivering these returns will have the odd sale. This article tries to paint a great investor who bought MSFT and AAPL at IPO and made an enormous return on Heiko. So seriously I would imagine that this guy would deliver at least 15%/year. Assuming what Stahleyp said about a $50 million starting point in 1982, which is very conservative based on that margin call comment, we would be looking at close to 250 times that money by now. IF he is a good investor. That is $12.5 billion! Today the guy has $2.3 billion minus a stake of $500 to $800 million. So what should be $12.5 billion is only $1.5 to $1.8 billion. Where did all the money go? $10 million/year in dividends from 1 business. Not sufficient to cover living expenses? Then what about all these dividends and income from the portfolio? Even if all spent, we should not be looking at what looks like a guy that made sub 10%/year over the last 38 and call this some great investor! Is 15% a year a crazy assumption? I don't think so. From a near depression level start where anyone could have produced massive returns in stocks AND long term bonds, 15% a year was easy to achieve in the 80's and 90's. Then we have massive gains on MSFT, AAPL and Heiko on top of that??? Great investor come on! What I can tell is that he is a big spender and based on this a terrible capital allocator. Cardboard

This is so funny Stahleyp! "Ok, this is getting deep into facepalm territory. Now I remember our past conversations.. it had been long enough that I had forgotten how you were." Good luck having the last word on this! This guy is right on everything, will never accept any feedback, will switch topic... Can't even see how he is but, you are the one arguing endlessly! Priceless! Cardboard

Multi-millionaire inventor? "“I didn’t want to have a big business,” he says. “But today, I have a 5 or a 6 or an 8 billion-dollar corporation, each of which I own 10% of.” That is worth something between $500 and $800 million giving him $10 million/year in dividends? If we can discern what is truly being said here. Poor journalism... If true, maybe the lesson is to keep holding on to your own business and be richer than diworsifieing in the stock market?

Thank you Rod, excellent post! It is called critical thinking and should be saluted instead of being called jackasses for asking tough questions and trying to figure out if it makes sense for any of us to improve our lot? Obviously, he is living a lavish lifestyle which must cost a fortune. We don't know when this started and at what level. It is also surprising to see such calculated low returns over time considering the S&P performance, that he had an enormous return on Heiko, participated in the IPO's of both MSFT and AAPL. I asked a related question about universally accepted definition of "great investor" on another thread and got no answer: Did anyone calculate Berkshire Hathaway's overall rate of return on its stock investments over the last 20 years? Cardboard

Surprised Liberty keeps defending this guy: “We’re going to move to a hydrogen economy.” I was pretty much called an idiot when I made a statement that hydrogen held a lot of promise. LOL! Cardboard

What about military spending? The U.S. is spending way too much on that during peace time. It should be something that could be ramped up and down depending on need. Cardboard

One thing is certain, cutting corporate taxes to make them more competitive with the rest of the world is one of the best thing done in the U.S. in a long time. Leaving aside some of the rest of the politics, Canada is losing HQ's, plants, foreign investment heading down big time and this despite a very low Loonie vs USD. You can only come to the conclusion that a lower tax burden is playing a big part into corporate decision making as to where to be. Regarding revenues vs spending, I have to agree with DTEJD1997. Tremendous amount of waste at all level of government. Terrible incentives as Munger would say. I am also amazed at how big Washington D.C. has become over the past 25 years. Cardboard