.jpg.e99b8ee1bba15f1fdb768412a015dd09.jpg)
ERICOPOLY
-
Posts
9,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ERICOPOLY
-
-
On 12/10/2021 at 6:42 AM, sleepydragon said:
It’s like getting re-married after you are already rich and you are not signing a prenuptial agreeement.
I don't know. Prenups are not all what many think. I didn't have a prenup and I was able to get a 70%-30% decision in my favor because I had significant 401k and IRA assets prior to my date of marriage and those assets grew enormously while married.
The law treated those as my "separate property" (inclusive of all the investment returns upon them).
The property subject to 50/50 division is "marital property", and that was basically founded on contributions to 401k and IRAs AFTER the date of marriage. Those assets were also worth a lot more.
Inheritance or gifts from family are also separate property (even if they occur during the marriage). Investment gains on inheritance/gifts also remain your separate property.
A prenup would have accomplished little (for my situation) in the end. Even if you get one, she can still live off of you after you part because California courts will take pity on her and claim she needs to at least be supported to some level the court deems fair.
Anyways, this isn't legal advice and I'm certainly not an attorney... it's just how it pertained to me and other situations and jurisdictions are often different.
I believe what I've said pertains to financial assets like stocks, but if you hold real estate as separate property I think she may have a claim on 1/2 of the appreciation after date of marriage. Perhaps a prenup can help with that.
-
3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:
Why is Steinhardt so despised? Is it for being a modern day Indiana Jones acquiring with stolen antiques? Sexual harassment allegations?
Indiana Jones believed things belonged in a museum.
Another candidate:
-
Discussing what political risks there are to BABA is pretty much all there is to discuss.
I see a qualitative difference compared to "my candidate is better! yours is old!... no! mine is better and yours is both old and crazy!"
Get it?
-
Bulleit Rye mixed with Coke tastes like a coke float. Mmmm...
-
On 11/29/2021 at 5:40 AM, Gregmal said:
That said, relevant to this topic, covid poses no threat to the market, other than short term opportunity for people who arent scarped of a short term paper loss IMO. Its done and people still worrying about it and selling their stocks in fear of the next variant should just index or something. The threats to the market IMO are still rate and inflation related and this holiday season should give a good indication of where the consumer really stands. If we can bulldoze through this and then get some pricing relief into Q1 there may be some opportunities. Either way though I still think theres lot of shit masquerading around that is going to have a very hard time.
You are right that a threat to the market is due to inflation but the global supply chain issues that are fueling inflation are BECAUSE of covid.
So the threat is covid.
The global supply chain issues are a combination of covid restrictions and covid's influence on consumer spending patterns.
-
12 hours ago, muscleman said:
Democrats were pro-lockdowns last year, only because they want to destroy the economy and win the election.
You are being ridiculous.
Don't you realize you are espousing a conspiracy theory?
-
4 hours ago, Mephistopheles said:
Let's say I want to generate income in my portfolio without paying dividend or income tax. How would one go about finding or browsing through companies that pay out "return of capital" dividends for which your cost basis goes down but you owe no tax on the income? I own some APTS and CLPR, also WMB which all are such.
I was initially under the impression that this is only a feature of MLPs but I guess not. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Context: I just signed a lease to move to NYC next week, so taxes have now become my immediate concern
APTS pays out lots of taxable income but it all goes to the preferred stock that people seem to hate so much. The common then gets additional capital gains in return.
APTS then appears to issue shares and pay out the cash proceeds out as a non-taxable dividend.
So I presume if you screen for stocks with a lot of preferred in the capital structure you may then find more companies doing this.
-
5 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:
It's an undesirable branch land job, a less desirable employer, and poorly paid - the labour pool is just voting with its feet ...
Qualifications:
experience: zero
education: high school
-
Last week I tried to get a wire transfer done at my local Wells Fargo branch and they didn't have a banker on-site that could handle it for me. They called another branch and still nobody, then at a 3rd branch they were able to tell me that the branch manager could handle it for me (and that's what happened).
I asked them what is going on, and they said they have 2 job postings and have only had 2 applications in 2 months, whereas normally they get 40 applications for each job.
-
8 hours ago, clutch said:
but tell me the last time a big tech company was able to successfully build a new platform/product that's outside of their core competencies.
Search -> Android
or
Search -> Chrome
-
And an important point to make, is that the closing price of FFH in 1989 (start of 1990) was $18.75 USD. Today the stock price is 24.42x that number. Well, with dividends reinvested the S&P500 purchased at start of 1990 has returned 25.13x.
Incredibly, after 32 years the FFH shareholder has only outperformed by the amount of the dividends paid.
I was a Junior in High School at the start of 1990. Wow!
-
Looking back 25 years to the start of 1997 through today:
If at the start of 1997 (and reinvesting all dividends) S&P 500 has had an 815% return.
FFH's book value per share has gained 792% (dividends not credited). With dividends FFH pulls ahead.
If you go back almost 32 years to the beginning of 1990 and run the same exercise, your returns are roughly 125% higher than that of the S&P500. So the Fairfax shareholder has more than twice as much money after nearly 32 years.
I don't know... risk adjusted, is that good? More money is more money, but there were additional risks too.
-
2 hours ago, matthew2129 said:
Most of these stocks individually are fine, maybe even above average, but a portfolio composed almost exclusively of cyclical, small cap, foreign, illiquid stocks is pretty shitty portfolio construction for regulated insurance entity that needs to worry about its mark-to-market shareholder capital. I don't think FFH could even exit a single one of these positions without tanking the stock. Would it be so much to have just one liquid large cap US-based company in your top holdings?
They tried that approach and wrote about their holdings in WFC, KFT, JNJ about 12 or 13 years ago. They didn't hold them very long.
Did they ever say why they reverted back?
-
1 hour ago, Cigarbutt said:
Contrary to others here, i thought that the valuation multiple used when the minority stake was then 'privatized' was lowish but acceptable
Wasn't it 1.3x tangible book? I thought a good deal of their compounding was due to investing prowess which I felt shouldn't have a multiple because stocks trade at what they trade at. If their portfolio is marked to market, that's all it's worth. (the whole "magic hat" debate). -
... and she complained that mine grew more than hers (because I was willing to risk my own money in ways that I wouldn't risk hers). You can't make it up!
-
1 hour ago, Redskin212 said:
Eric,
For those of us who have been around since the short attack almost 20 years ago now - we are pretty much there
Absent the NYSE listing.... grrrr.... where are the call options?
I remember I was staying at Waimea Plantation Cottages in June 2006 and I just kept buying calls from their Lanai where they had WiFi. Every dollar I could scrape together including credit card debt went into those calls. Now my ex calls me a 'gambler' but happily agreed to keep $2m of her Roth IRA which I grew from $40k.
-
14 minutes ago, Parsad said:
Long-term that only works if the cash flows are consistent or growing. Buybacks of a business with declining cash flow does not have the same positive effect. Cheers!
If you bought back 50% of PDH I could sell 50% of mine. That's the same as a dividend.
If the manager buys back shares and the shareholder doesn't pay attention and sell an offsetting amount then it constitutes agreement with management.
-
7 minutes ago, Parsad said:
Yeah, I was going to remind you of that.
Cheers!
I have to say, that on balance I admire Prem.
I wish he never mentioned "the great ones" and just did his own thing.
I've made my mistakes but I'm a 'speculator' and that's what we do.
-
19 minutes ago, matthew2129 said:
Companies that consistently plow a significant portion of their free cash flow to buyback stock instead of issue dividends tend to trade at a premium to their peers b/c having a whale consistently sitting at the bid de-risks the investment and creates a huge tailwind for the price. Do that quarter after quarter, year after year, and the premium becomes permanent. And I'm not talking about the dorks with calculators who only buyback their stock when it's trading at a discount to intrinsic value, I'm talking about the Alpha Chads like AAPL, AZO, NVR ect. who smash the ask and eat themselves every quarter
Pumping the stock is a real thing.
I've always said who give a crap if the manager buys back stock at sky-high prices. YOU WANT THAT! Would anyone here complain if Prem announced the buyback at $100,000 per share? Just take the money and laugh.
-
Keep in mind that I had not choice to sell. To be honest, I was happy with the quick buck. But not everyone felt that way. Cardboard was pissed.
-
The 'magic' that Prem is doing here isn't buying back stock... it's that he bought back ORH from people like myself and is selling it back to another investor at an even higher multiple.
Buy low and sell high. I'm wondering why I wasn't paid the same multiple for my ORH shares that he is getting from the new investors.
-
If you take the Teledyne folklore and run the numbers again for a joe-sixpack investor on a DRIP in an IRA account, they'll look the same whether it be buyback or dividend.
-
Companies like to print charts of how their shares measure up to the S&P 500. They goose the numbers with buybacks.
Dividend payers don't deliver less value to shareholders (taxes aside). They just don't have the boost to their per-share growth numbers that the buybacks have.
Per-share doesn't matter if you can have an offsetting amount of more-shares.
-
Reinvesting your dividend into additional shares has exactly the same accretive effect assuming that the prices paid for the shares are equal to what the company would have paid, and assuming no dividend taxes.
Buybacks are primarily tax avoidance.
Have We Hit The Top?
in General Discussion
Posted
There are value stocks today as well. Some are rising today as the market is falling.