doc75

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm likely just ignorant. I've only been able to find reports describing Mnuchin's purported lies to congress. In particular, it seems he was asked directly about robo-signing, something he said company did not do. But, from what I've read, this is demonstrably false. There were also some things he said that appeared to stretch the truth, with regards to the timing of his position at OneWest. Could someone provide me with counterpoint (links or anything). I'm just finding lots of hits for rehashes of the original story from the Ohio Dispatch. Thanks

+1 I decided to +1 this post because I almost always find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum as Cardboard and thought I'd take the opportunity while I can! :) Related: Wish I knew more about pharma investing (black box to me) because surely there will be big opportunities here. I hope the knowledgeable folks on the board will start posting some ideas!

Mostly I think the media is a business, juicing all this political fervour for all it's worth, on both sides of the spectrum. Trump is using them and they're using him. Maybe things seem particularly out of control right now because Trump delights in spectacle and provides a constant stream of "content". (He is, if nothing else, a master of political theatre.) In all honesty, the folks in charge of the MSM must be creaming themselves. That said, I don't understand the current cries about the biased MSM. Hasn't it been this way for years? Fox is part of the MSM and is unabashedly biased to the right. During W's time in office they were essentially the admin's PR dept., much as people are saying now about CNN. During Obama's time Fox was hypercritical while liberal-leaning outfits were in starry-eyed love. Each knows its audience and serves them what they want. I don't think it's good. I enjoy reading objective, rational reporting from both sides, and basically face-palm upon opening most Fox or CNN articles. I'm sure there's always been bias, but the level of groupthink now seems a bit crazy and is being spurred on by opportunistic media giants who have 24/7 access to people's ears/eyes.

Yates' move was clear political grandstanding, in my opinion --- and more opportunistic than brave, given that she knew she'd be gone in a couple days anyway. But the press release is ridiculous. Who writes this crap? If anything just say "we thank Mrs. Yates for her services to the country" and move on. Show some grace, particularly when you're the one in control. Incidentally, the MSM (all brands) must be loving all this drama. Who said the circus wasn't profitable!

The press release you posted would make for a great satirical piece if it wasn't real.

This was my take, too.

Wow. Nice contribution. Perfectly rational. And the "Turdeau" thing is a tour-de-force. Your own?

This was a good read. I've looked back over my adult life and now see that many of the things I hitherto viewed as "big mistakes" were really instances of me being a master negotiator. I'm going to call Tony Schwartz and see if he'd be interested in another ghostwriting gig. I don't support Trump but I respect that there are a lot of intelligent people who do. I simply fail to see how his supporters continue to pretend that his mistakes are actually "masterstrokes" of strategy. He is an intentionally ill-informed contrarian who makes decisions quickly and without much detailed analysis. This leads to big mistakes and they should be viewed as such, however good the intentions may be. Incidentally: Whenever I imagine Steve Bannon whispering in Trump's ear I think of Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. Which begs the question.... who is Saruman?

A little more colour on this: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170129/trump-treasury-pick-mnuchin-misled-senate-on-foreclosures-ohio-cases-show

The correlation is obvious and was not being questioned. Your original post suggested that this correlation is not only statistically significant, but that there is a causative relationship lurking here. You'd also find quite a strong correlation between gun violence and public transit funding, but I doubt that riding the subway drives many people to murder. You are presenting these statements sarcastically, but I'd give a nod to both. Reasonable men may disagree. You can think me a bit of a sucker, and I can think you a bit selfish. History seems to indicate a gradual global migration toward helping the less fortunate. My personal view is that many people in the upper economic strata grant themselves far too much credit for their financial success. I think it's fair to say that most (certainly not all) people in the top echelons were on a relatively privileged trajectory from birth. I've had enough experience working with the other side to be convinced that "laziness" is pretty far down on the list of reasons people find themselves at the margins. So I am morally/socially aligned with some transfers of wealth from the have's to the have-not's. I also believe that such money is very likely to be recycled back into my local economy, and selfishly feel that my living conditions improve when the level of desperation around me is lessened. Really? It strikes me that justifications are presented by both sides, but nobody is too interested in listening, possibly because all rational arguments get mutilated by hackneyed or hyperbolic/alarmist reporting. (Just look at this thread, let alone Twitter, CNN etc.) So, instead of moving towards the middle, it seems we're tending toward oscillation at the extremes. It's divisive and dangerous. And it's a feedback loop, with the instantaneity of modern media exacerbating the situation. Maybe I'm just becoming an old guy. I'm convinced that a media environment that features self-reinforcing news-feeds and celebrates lizard-brain oneupmanship over rational deliberation is doing us great harm. Finally, I agree that there's an overuse of reactionary/buzzy words, and I particularly hate seeing "racist" being applied blindly, but it's hardly one-sided. Buzz words and epithets are thrown around unsparingly by both sides.

thank you. on a separate note, whatever odds a person gave for the warrants remaining intact a week ago, i would guess those odds should be lower now after watching the first week of the new administration. the decisiveness and respect for law. Yea, if they wipe out the warrants that would be fantastic for the common. On the other hand, an issue I've raised a few times: they wipe out the warrants, and wipe out all non-Paulson,Pershing,Perry,Fairholme shareholders, and give the winnings to them 4. Because as you said, no respect for the rule of law and Trump has no shame. I may be wrong, but I thought invG was implying that Trump's actions show decisiveness and respect for the law (not the opposite). I personally disagree strongly with Trump but I think the executive orders explicitly instruct the border authorities to follow the law as it is written (hence the displeasure with sanctuary cities etc.).

I think the strength of your example perfectly illustrates how *different* censorship is in the US compared to China.

OK. Clearly western democracies are not perfect, and the freedoms we enjoy are not absolute. In my opinion we've been moving in the wrong direction in terms of personal freedoms for many years now. But it's disingenuous to draw a few parallels and then claim China does not seem all that different. It's like saying, "Humans have two eyes, a nose, and legs. Humans don't seem all that different from dogs." You're just ignoring the major differences. For instance, in addition to your examples of governmental infringements, China has formal state censorship, aggressive suppression of dissent, and restrictions on procreation. We're nowhere close. (Yet!)

I think Sanjeev will have to "walk this one back", as they say on CNN. See, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

A Trump advisor implied that this was indeed a pleasant byproduct of the nonsense inauguration messaging. There was no indication it was a purposeful distraction, but let's assume that this was Trump at his "best", moving the discussion away from important topics. How in the world is this a good thing? Do you really applaud this tactic? Again: Spin is everywhere. Outright lying + doublespeak such as "alternative facts" is at a whole different level.

There's no question the media can be biased and is replete with manufactured outrage etc. However, in this particular case, I fail to understand how Trump is "calling the media out". Calling them out on what, exactly? They actually did their job. He was making obviously false claims about how his inauguration crowds were the biggest ever, yada yada. Hardly surprising coming from him, but the media did the right thing by challenging his exaggerations. So he had a little fit and got wildly sidetracked during his speech at the CIA. Then he sent his press secretary out to double down on easily proven falsehoods. Then Kellyanne tripled-down and coined the phrase "alternative facts". The very fact that his counsel has introduced the phrase "alternative facts" into the lexicon (on the second day in office!) should trouble even his most ardent rational supporters. Since everyone likes to put these discussions in an investing framework: Imagine listening to a conference call where the CEO states that revenues increased by 25% YOY whereas a simple calculation shows there was actually a decline of 10%. The CEO not only stands by his numbers when challenged, but is pissed that analysts are questioning him. Then, in response further queries, the company's general counsel (or VP investor relations) states that the 25% increase is an "alternative fact". I just don't get how any rational person/investor could not be alarmed by this behaviour. Yes, there's always spin. But generally in the world's respected democracies the spin is not with regards to readily established facts. All this said, my biggest fear is that Trump's narcissism makes him very manipulable. He is clearly preoccupied with his own grandeur to a degree incomprehensible to the average person. Fortunately there are some smart people around him to help guide the ship. EDIT: My mistake. I read through the earlier posts too quickly and now realize Sanjeev's question was specifically aimed at the first press conference, not his more recent experiences with "truth and the media". I left the rest of my post above because I think it's still relevant.

I find it very difficult to analyze this type of data properly. If the market has an appetite for high oil prices, then operating costs will naturally be inflated. I'm sure all sorts of costs (in constant dollars) have gone up. It's just hard to strip out all the confounding factors to figure out which costs are rising because of technical challenges etc, versus which costs are higher simply because of oil-boom momentum. For instance, everyone knows labour costs in the patch are astronomical. I have no idea of their per cent contribution to operating costs, but labour will come down dramatically with lower expectations regarding crude prices. In fact I expect we'll see some magical improvements in operating metrics for many E&P companies if the crude price continues to wallow. Always easier to cut waste when your ass is on the line. Alas it's safe to ignore everything you just read. This oil rout has finally allowed me to complete a multi-year proof that I have absolutely no capacity for investing in commodities!

The "TSX Monte Carlo" has a nice ring.

I think the TSX Venture index just hit its 2008-2009 low. I'm not trying to make a point -- just an interesting tidbit.

Has anyone spent a moment looking at Entrec (ENT.TO)? They're in the heavy haul and crane business out in the Alberta oil patch. Started up operations a couple years ago with an acquisition strategy. As you already know (even before looking at the chart), the stock is down from the $1.20-1.40 range to $0.60-0.65, which is well below tangible book. It sold off particularly hard (10x normal volume) on the news of the Petronas delay. There are lots of companies like this right now, and I'm not claiming this one is special. (It may be. I really haven't looked into it carefully but intend to at some point.) It's their debentures that caught my eye -- $25M convertible issue, 7% coupon, maturing end of October 2017. They've tanked in just a few weeks down to 60% par. This seems irrationally pessimistic. Yes they're levered, but senior debt consists of a asset-backed line of credit maturing in 2019, on which they owe about $140M and pay 3.5% interest. They have enough room on the ABL to pay off the debs if they so desired. Insiders have been buying the debs recently at $80.xx. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be happy to hear them.

I have yet to see a dividend cut that is fully "priced in" --- it seems there's always a spike down when the cut is announced, even if is patently obvious that either the cut is coming. But I've seen many instances where a brief spike down on the divi-cut is followed by a very fast correction to the pre-cut price (or even higher). Maybe that's a better definition of "priced in": Will a cut have any more than a very short-term affect on the price? I don't think this is true with PWT in this environment. A cut will be just another reason to drive the price down, and it seems likely it will keep going down until either crude goes up or they manage to sell some assets for non-firesale prices.

Wouldn't this just be a standard NAV calculation, assigning zero value to any goodwill on the balance sheet? The more pressing question to me is: How do you calculate NAV in the first place? Do you look through the reserve reports and adjust for a lower price of oil? Or are you talking about a NAV number as presented by management? NAV for E&P companies always seems like a moving target to me.

Petronas put their LNG plans on hold. I assume this is the reason for the 10%+ decline in various oil service stocks today. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/petronas-puts-b-c-lng-plant-on-hold-1.2859551

More accurately, Edwards sees oil plausibly spiking down to $30-35 and stabilizing at $70-75. But no matter. Even with a brief spike many O&G equities will get hammered compared to today's prices.

Because there were those in the market (analysts, traders, speculators, etc) that did expect OPEC to announce cuts in output. Remember the analysts were split before the meeting and it's likely that some market participants believed (and hence acted) as if there was a cut coming. And because it didn't, it was time to close their bets (ie - sell their long position) as the outcome contravened their thesis. "A Bloomberg News survey showed 20 analysts were evenly divided on whether the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will cut supply." Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-25/wti-extends-drop-from-4-year-low-as-pre-opec-talks-fail-on-cuts.html Thanks. I was under the impression that the vast majority of analysts were expecting no action (or, at least, expecting a cut to have no impact). Don't know how I missed that it was evenly divided sentiment.