dwy000

Slide 15 is the best one in the deck. It underpins just how strong the entire industry is across the board. BRO is slightly better, but just having a position in the peer group puts you WAY ahead of the market.

If you like the Newcastle one you might like Sunderland Til I Die which is a similar documentary but a team struggling with relegation.

That's true - but the FTC can't fix that part of it, just the legal stuff

you're actually not legally required to join a union. and if you're a member of one you are permitted to resign.

Want to hear the thoughts on BRP too. I'm concerned that they have a ton of contingent earn out payments this year that should use up most excess cash flow and push back meaningful debt repayment. Once those are reduced however, it should free cash flow pretty nicely to reduce debt. Not a big fan of the very confusing cap structure whereby the A shares and B shares reflect the pre-IPO partnership structure. The publicly traded holding company technically only owns 53% of the operating company (the A shares). I guess it works but the share count keeps throwing me off.

I think its a bunch of things: - far less public companies today as the benefits of being public are far outweighed by the hassle of reporting requirements, PR, legal liability and costs - all of which really only works at scale; - Peter Lynch wrote that in the 80's before the internet - most of those companies he pointed to as "buy what you know" were retailers or restaurants opening new stores. That doesn't exist as much anymore although new food concepts seem to be flourishing. - technology - most startups and fast growth companies nowadays are tech based which scales faster but is easily replicable so it makes moats more difficult - globalization - I don't think there's less competition as much as the competition is no longer just local or national, it's global. Between technology and global competitors margins are lower and you need scale to compete and that results in consolidation. - more investors using better technology to screen from fewer options. There's no operating under the radar screen until some enterprising investor discovers your stock. - etc. etc. The book was and is one of the all time best investing books for newbies. But I don't think the opportunities are as broad as they used to be.

That was a bold move. If the Dis/Chrt dispute leads to a revamp of the cable packaging those retrans payments that make up half of their cash flow are in jeopardy.

That's probably true but can you imagine the nightmare it would be waiting and hoping for a government solution while your house was in shambles. It would be a miracle if that came through within 2 yrs of the event. More likely that a smaller or midsized event prompts the discussion and a quasi solution.

Nah, it was the public fight between Disney and Charter.

I enjoyed this too but it wasn't what I thought or was hoping it would be. I wanted insight into the logistics and financial workings of supermarkets (why is milk at the back, details on placement fees, coupons, etc, etc) and it covered some of those indirectly but it was really a series of personal stories of people within the supermarket universe (a truck driver, a person trying to sell them a product, etc). It even had the author working at Whole Foods for a while selling fish. It was interesting but not really about supermarkets per se, more the people who make them work.

Chances are it would still beat what we are all trying to do here.

forgot to reiterate what Inofeisone mentioned - if the plan is a true "reinvestment" plan and not one that issues new shares, you will effectively be receiving cash and simultaneously be making a market purchase of stock. There's price risk there for a very short period of time but the important difference is the accounting: lower Equity by the amount of the dividend and simulaneously lower cash. The share count would be unchanged. You will be taxed as a regular dividend even though you didn't net any new cash in your account.

easiest way to think of it is if every shareholder was in a DRIP. For newly issued shares the right side of the balance sheet is unchanged but the share count increases (equity reduced by dividend and increased same amount by newly issued shares). It's basically a stock dividend and is dilution for everyone. I think generally DRIP's are so small relative to shareholders taking cash it doesn't matter much.

C'mon man, give some context. Where is this?

It's not actual cash funded. It's the value of weapons, most of which are dated and simply sitting in an aging stockpile.

I've taken a bunch of these (including for MBA and after). By FAR the best and most effective part of them is not the teaching per se but the discussion and interaction. More learning comes from the other students and the prof reacting than anything you can read or watch. It's kind of like this board. Regardless of your view on a stock (or issue) you will learn more about it, the industry, your thesis and you will ultimately understand it better by discussing and disagreeing than anything you can watch or read on your own.

This was really interesting (something I never thought I'd say about insurance!!). Two questions came up reading it: a) if the broker "has the pen", who is doing the actuarial work? It seems the broker can just underpriced non-standard risk to win business. How does the risk taking company control the pen if it's not off the shelf stuff? B) on the wholesale, who is taking the risk and doing the pricing while the book builds to something big enough to pass along as wholesale? And if they aren't standard risks how are they grouped and packaged as wholesale? It feels like a fine line between wholesaling and actually being an insurance company that can hang onto risk to make the quarter if necessary. Thanks as always!

LTI - absolutely love your insider insights into this industry. Worth it's weight in gold. Please keep it up!!

If he was really a Goldman employee I'm not sure he'd be bitching about $50.

That gets a lot of people! The reality is that you will almost never need or use that extreme acceleration and while it's fun as hell, after a couple of weeks it's just the expensive car in the driveway. Lots of reasons to go electric if you buy a car but don't do it for the acceleration

It implies consistent long term growth but id suspect a lot of the gains for many of these were in a single 3-5 year span. I'm too lazy to research it but I wonder how many are on the 10 and 20 year list solely based on performance in the past 5 years.

And she will market the crap out of that gain even though it is only because she dropped massively last year and its a small rebound. I don't think she is breakeven on the money she has raised to date. But she will definitely market it like a 48% gain is a huge win not a dead cat bounce.

I don't know, that could be a factor but it could also be that with most work now done from home or isolated in front of a screen, the after work social part is more important. There aren't too many large cities in the US that are shrinking and rent seems to continue going up everywhere. The dynamic of living in the city and enjoying the social aspects while you are young and single, then moving to the burbs or more rural when you settle down and have kids, seems to be continuing. What will be interesting is to see how the rapid decline in the birth rate will impact that.

I agree, they do seem to shoot themselves in the foot and are their own worst enemy a lot. Many of the laws and regulations and things they try are stupid (I thought Bloomberg's "fat tax" on sodas was the ultimate big government stupidity attempt). Huge cities do dumb things largely because they can. And it will come full circle at some point as it always has - Guiliani's crackdown on crime after the Dinkin years for example. Bloomberg tacking red tape. Etc. It's funny because when I lived there some of the older residents lamented the clean up and Disney-fying of Times Square because they thought NY was losing its grittiness and hard edge. But as a place to start a business it will always be a top draw because it is where the money and the talent accumulate. Even in WFH, the jobs, the networking, the bars and restaurants get centralized for efficiency. 25 or 30 yr old IT engineers who want to and can make an absolute fortune don't want to do it Des Moines, Iowa, they want to be where the action is. At some point the pendulum will swing back and they'll loosen up the dumb rules and reduce the tax burden but it will take a while.

I'm not sure how you compare if you don't use statistics. Certainly homicides dont go underreported (you would hope). From the latest comparable stats (2021), NYC's homicide rate of 5.8 murders per 100,000 residents is way, way less than other large cities: Chicago (30), Houston (20), Miami (10.7), Oklahoma City (12), LA (10). Property crimes were 757 vs Miami at 3,716. These could all be worse now than 2021 of course. I think NYC feels worse because of how dense it is. Other cities have violent pockets and you can pretty much live in that city without ever feeling unsafe but in NY it's so dense it's harder to avoid even though its safter.