dwy000

The WSJ is owned and run by Rupert Murdoch. Hardly a leftist rag. If you think a trade war is going to reduce fentanyl, you have been sold a bill of goods. What does it have to do with Canada or the EU? This is 100% a political move (to what end, nobody can seem to tell) that will be paid for by Americans.

Every economist, the Wall Street Journal and every trade or historical expert disagrees with this. It has nothing to do with drugs, it has nothing to do with immigration (why tarriff the EU). It's going to cause massive disruption and excess cost/inflation. Homebuilders and auto companies will be especially hard hit. Manufacturing won't move onshore because nobody is investing millions in infrastructure to offset a tarriff that could literally be cancelled tomorrow (and almost certainly after next president takes office). As the WSJ opined today this is the dumbest trade war in history. There's no purpose and it hurts Americans for zero reason.

The process. I'd take a sub index return (to a point) to manage the funds myself. Love the research, love the analysis and seeing if it pays off.

Because there's no limit on what providers are allowed to charge - and nobody is price shopping health care, especially urgent or emergency care or pharma with no generic or equivalent. So quite a bit of insurance (incl medicare and medicaid and pharma) is priced off the "list" price with a % discount negotiated by insurance.

While I don't question his view I'm not sure that's a broad enough source that we should be relying on to determine trade policy with our largest partner. The Canadian military is nominal already at best. What i love about this board is that when it comes to investing it is about the most intelligent, analytical and rational group I've been exposed to. Nobody, even Buffett, gets a free pass and every decision is scrutinized and questioned and very often disagreed with - even if you think he's the greatest of all time. It confuses me that people aren't willing to do the same independent analysis on political moves. You can still think Trump is the goat but legitimately question the rationale of decisions like this one.

What source are you using that shows the increase in drugs and immigrants from Canada? And the security issue is more the US protecting itself. Canada doesn't have a whole lot of enemies and only shares a border with one country.

Canada had it's largest drug bust ever yesterday. They were drugs from Mexico that came thru the US. The US's own analysis of drug traffic sources (from multiple administrations) don't even list Canada. India is higher.

I don't think it's accurate to say all of America is behind him on tariffs on Canada. Mexico maybe but not Canada - there are no drugs coming from Canada. The fact that people on this board (who i consider to be on the right end of the intelligence bell curve) are scratching their heads to figure out what the purpose of the tariffs are tells you that it's not a widely shared view. And when prices for many things go up even more people will be asking questions. Just wait until those Joe investors get hit with lower home builds from the cost increases. Again, I'd ask, what is the point of the tariffs? There are no drugs coming from Canada and free trade that governs the relationship is the one from the previous Trump term so he cant be claiming that's unfair. So....why?

The opposition to Trudeau (including his own party) used the trip to Florida against him and it helped ensure his demise. I'm not sure what message that sends to the next Prime Minister but you can be sure they will all run on the premise of pushing back on Trump harder than the other guy. Kowtowing loses votes not gains them.

He may have wanted him out (and I have no idea why other than rumors of Melania's crush) but he had nothing to do with it actually happening. The guy had a 25% approval rating. He was doomed long ago.

Trump didn't get rid of Trudeau - Trudeau did that all on his own and long before the US election. Trump taking sides in the election is more likely to support the other parties than the one he wants.

You may be giving credit for 3rd level thinking that is much lower order. There are no drugs or immigrants coming from Canada on any meaningful scale (if you're an immigrant who made it Canada why move?) so it looks more like a "pick-on-the-smaller-kid-to look-tough" move. Like Greenland or Panama. What would he want out of an election in Canada? What exactly is a "win" here? Threats tend to rally the troops in the other direction. Putting a 25% tariff on half of the lumber used in the US is going to have a pretty negative impact on homebuilding (and running out the workers who do most of the actual building won't help either). Confused as to what the end game is here that is good for either side.

It's the whole crypto argument. If you start a company there's probably something underpinning the shares that people are buying into. Here's there's nothing. At least DJT pretends there's a business behind it for people to buy into.

Keep in mind that if you add from the cash flow statement, for that same year (Jan 2024), in addition to the tax expense of $4,058 they also paid down $2,489 in deferred income tax (a cash expense) and another $2,783 in cash taxes related to restricted stock units. So combined thats $9,330 in cash taxes on $33.8bn of pretax income.

It does make me wonder how big of a fundamental shift is actually going on in the booze market and where the bottom lies. Especially when the recent studies show the drop in drinking by teens and 20's has been enormous. Restaurants are hurting from lower alcohol sales (while non-alcoholic drinks are taking off), nightclub attendance has been hammered, and it increasingly appears to be a long term shift not a short term wave. STZ takes share but that's gonna come at the cost of margins at some point. It's an appealing cash flow story if you can get comfortable there's a bottom nearby.

While robotics will undoubtedly be a huge industry the winners will be the companies building custom robots for specific use. The number of companies that have produced awesomely cool robots that have never gone anywhere is a long list. Boston Dynamics being the poster child (and Tesla's humanoid will be.the same). You never want to invest in a solution looking for a problem. You want the company that solves a massive problem for their customers using robots. And that usually means custom, problem-specific robotics.

From the 2 minutes of research I did it would appear that the 12%+ difference between the YTD returns on the S&P 500 and the DJIA might be the largest ever (or at least in a very long time). Trying to figure out what the takeaway from that should be. Historically there's been almost lockstep reversion in these. Is it likely that the DJIA outperforms over the coming year(s) or is this the new normal as the Mag 7 continue to dominate?

What the hell kind of attack is that? It looks more like target practice. North Korea might be doing more damage to their reputation as a credible military threat than anything by showing how woefully unprepared and unskilled they are.

I just added some more CI

Yes. But if theres a murder a day (and NYC has one of the lower violent crime rates of large US cities) how many do you actually hear about if you're not actively searching it out? That guy at McDonalds who called him in was in a whole different state and would never have even known what to look for if it wasn't such a high profile case.

Certain cases capture the public's attention more than others. Natalie Holloway, Gabby Petito, Alex Murdaugh, etc. This one had all the hallmarks to do so - targeted brazen shooting with a silencer in NYC, high profile rich target, CEO of a maligned industry that would please a lot of people, a suspect who was attractive and eluded police, etc. It's straight out of a Dateline episode. High media profile results in a lot of police attention, much more than a case that nobody hears about.

Is there any reason the industry is taking it on the chin today? Was there an analyst downgrade of the major players? I dont normally care about daily moves but this was large and across the board. Worried i missed some news. They are all down like 4-5%.

Absolutely would!!! Unfortunately those with low income, those over 50, those overweight and those with chronic disease would still be unable to afford care. Insurance is a nightmare. But in the current system they are the only party putting a brake pedal on costs.

Look at how much the large health insurers plummeted this year when their utilization rates on Medicare rose a couple of points. And they're repricing and dropping Medicare coverage for coming years. They can be less of an asshole, just pay out and charge for it but they'd lose half their customers on higher premiums. Everyone wants phenomenal coverage and every drug.and every test and treatment when their family is sick. And hospitals want to over care and over charge. So the only brake pedal is insurer. But then people also want low premiums and deductibles and no exclusions. It's just an impossible bridge to gap. The craziest name on that denials chart was Kaiser. They combine insurance and hospital. And they're denying their own coverage!

I don't think that's entirely true. The providers will be capped on what the insurers will pay but they generally will directly charge the consumer for an excess. If you go to hospital you will get a bill showing headline price, negotiated discount price for that insurers customers, how much the insurer paid and then you are supposed to pay the difference.