President-Elect Trump trades

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Grenville said:

 

Would love to see where you're getting your data about illegal immigrants over the last four years being 10-12mln and the total number in the US at 25-40mln

 

As of May, 2024 - 10 Million.   The 25-40 is over time. Pick your own number if you like.

 

https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/April-24-Startling-Stats.pdf

 

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/22/startling-stats-factsheet-biden-administration-on-track-to-reach-10-million-encounters-nationwide-before-end-of-fiscal-year/

 

Edited November 19 by cubsfan

[Blugolds]

 

[rogermunibond]

Encounter isn't the same as unauthorized living in the US.

 

Many of the encounters are as follows:  "Encounter data includes U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 Apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions* for fiscal years (FY) 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Data is available for the Northern Land Border, Southwest Land Border, and Nationwide (i.e., air, land, and sea modes of transportation) encounters."

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

On 11/19/2024 at 8:11 AM, dealraker said:

Of interest of some on the TT may be that my nephew just returned from the Southeast Independent Builders Supply gathering.  Given our builders supply is (ongoing) the most profitable of this large group based on net profit margin some amount of "awe shucks maybe these guys know a little bit" could possibly come forth.

 

In any event my nephew says the gathering was quite euphoric, the election cast a unanimous surety of lower taxes and lower interest rates among the business owners.  Much like today's Wall Street analysts the "sure thing" of the new administration's huge effect and affect on the economy is obviously pressed right into today's quotes on many publicly traded entities.

 

During the session there was a "let's do an open discussion of our concerns" and whatnot.  Along the way my nephew brought up his concern, it went something like, "I'm a bit concerned about our labor force..."

 

The room went silent my nephew says.  Yep, that's where we are today.  And you can be absolutely certain that no one in my family has a ****ing clue about the builders supply and building business...or so it seems from the latest SBSI gathering.   Lower taxes and lower interest rates are 100% certain as is the abundance of labor.

 

Kansas City Fed chief says that her family owns a bank in Kansas and that they serve farmers and ranchers. With that perspective, she added its getting very difficult to find people to work agricultural jobs

 

Are all the "they're stealing our jobs" crowd going to move to Kansas and work as farm labor? Or are they gonna keep complaining about their lot in life instead of doing something about it? 

 

We're gonna get to see

Edited November 20 by TwoCitiesCapital

[rogermunibond]

31 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Kansas City Fed chief says that her family owns a bank in Kansas and that they serve farmers and ranchers. With that perspective, she added its getting very difficult to find people to work agricultural jobs

 

Are all the "they're stealing our jobs" crowd going to move to Kansas and work as farm labor? Or are they gonna keep complaining about their lot in life instead of doing something about it? 

 

We're gonna get to see

 

Farm jobs, grain silos, meat packers, dairy farms, milk processors, cheese producers, food manufacturing plants, and on and on and on.

 

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Kansas City Fed chief says that her family owns a bank in Kansas and that they serve farmers and ranchers. With that perspective, she added its getting very difficult to find people to work agricultural jobs

 

Are all the "they're stealing our jobs" crowd going to move to Kansas and work as farm labor? Or are they gonna keep complaining about their lot in life instead of doing something about it? 

 

We're gonna get to see

25% of the country is on Medicaid.  May be institute 40 hours per week work requirements, and if 10% of the 80MM actually get a job, then your problem gets solved?

[rogermunibond]

4 minutes ago, Dinar said:

25% of the country is on Medicaid.  May be institute 40 hours per week work requirements, and if 10% of the 80MM actually get a job, then your problem gets solved?

Not really.  A little under half of Medicaid recipients are dual eligible - Medicaid/Medicare and retirement age.

 

About 40% are employed.  The rest are disabled.  You could scrutinize Medicaid and SSI disability more.  That's one road if there's disability fraud.

[Dinar]

4 minutes ago, rogermunibond said:

Not really.  A little under half of Medicaid recipients are dual eligible - Medicaid/Medicare and retirement age.

 

About 40% are employed.  The rest are disabled.  You could scrutinize Medicaid and SSI disability more.  That's one road if there's disability fraud.

a) There is a lot of disability fraud.  % of workforce on disability is up 5x since the 1920s/1930s, while clearly computer programming is a safer occupation than mining.

b) Where do you get the figure that 40% of people on Medicaid are employed full time?  In NYC for instance, wages for fast food are $18+ per hour, that's $38k+ per year.  Medicaid income limit in NY is 19K.   

[thepupil]

3 minutes ago, Dinar said:

a) There is a lot of disability fraud.  % of workforce on disability is up 5x since the 1920s/1930s, while clearly computer programming is a safer occupation than mining.

b) Where do you get the figure that 40% of people on Medicaid are employed full time?  In NYC for instance, wages for fast food are $18+ per hour, that's $38k+ per year.  Medicaid income limit in NY is 19K.   

 

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-work-a-look-at-what-the-data-say/#:~:text=Most Medicaid adults who work,) (Appendix Table 2).

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

So 25% becomes 12% when knocking out those who are already working full time. 

 

Then that 12% reduces even further when we assume that some of the are, in fact, legitimately disabled and or too young to work (below 18 years of age which ~30-40% Medicaid  recipients are I believe). 

 

So suddenly we're down to the low single digit percentages where fraud might be a factor. Even assuming 100% fraud we're still talking about only 1-2 million people. Seems a pretty small number compared to the current 22 million in current full time/part time agricultural jobs and we haven't even thrown in construction. 

[Dinar]

36 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

So 25% becomes 12% when knocking out those who are already working full time. 

 

Then that 12% reduces even further when we assume that some of the are, in fact, legitimately disabled and or too young to work (below 18 years of age which ~30-40% Medicaid  recipients are I believe). 

 

So suddenly we're down to the low single digit percentages where fraud might be a factor. Even assuming 100% fraud we're still talking about only 1-2 million people. Seems a pretty small number compared to the current 22 million in current full time/part time agricultural jobs and we haven't even thrown in construction. 

22MM in agriculture jobs?  Are you kidding me? That cannot be correct.  10-15% of the US labor force is NOT in agriculture.

Edited November 20 by Dinar

[Dinar]

37 minutes ago, thepupil said:

 

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-work-a-look-at-what-the-data-say/#:~:text=Most Medicaid adults who work,) (Appendix Table 2).

 

First of all, the 6% that attend school can stop attending school and get a job.  2nd of all, 18% that work part-time can actually work full time.  That's already 6MM adults.  3rd - I don't believe the data about 43% of people on Medicaid working 40 hours a week and yet being eligible.  I don't know about many places, but given wages in California, NY metropolitan area, Boston, Hawaii - nobody who works 40 hours a week there will qualify for Medicaid given income limits. How many people "work full time" and are on Medicaid in those places?

[Masterofnone]

1 hour ago, Dinar said:

25% of the country is on Medicaid.  May be institute 40 hours per week work requirements, and if 10% of the 80MM actually get a job, then your problem gets solved?

19%- still a lot.

[thepupil]

45 minutes ago, Dinar said:

First of all, the 6% that attend school can stop attending school and get a job.  2nd of all, 18% that work part-time can actually work full time.  That's already 6MM adults.  3rd - I don't believe the data about 43% of people on Medicaid working 40 hours a week and yet being eligible.  I don't know about many places, but given wages in California, NY metropolitan area, Boston, Hawaii - nobody who works 40 hours a week there will qualify for Medicaid given income limits. How many people "work full time" and are on Medicaid in those places?

 

I can't tell you. my default would be to assume the data is correct.

 

I can give you one example. My sister in law is on medicaid and SSI and by design has no assets (it's important to have <$3000 to maintain eligibility for various things).

 

She's about 40 years old and lives with her mom. she is technically an independent adult (she does not have a guardian). She is severely mentally disabled and dependent on the care of her mom. she has a part time job cleaning at a cafeteria arranged via a program that helps special needs people get jobs to make them feel fulfilled but in no circumstances could she work a full time job. I would be surprised if she makes more than $5K / year. She is also a student in that she takes a community college course. 

 

but that's of course just an anecdote. any one of us can have a different anecdote. she's the only person i know who's on medicaid for sure, but it's not a topic in which i'm an expert. but I don't have reason to believe the data is wrong. 

 

 

Edited November 20 by thepupil

[yesman182]

On 11/17/2024 at 6:17 PM, Lazarus said:

The KHC yield has a 144% payout ratio. Doesn't seem sustainable.

How are you coming up with those values? They earned 2.98 per share last year and paid 1.60 in dividends. This year will be about the same. 

[Masterofnone]

1 hour ago, Dinar said:

22MM in agriculture jobs?  Are you kidding me? That cannot be correct.  10-15% of the US labor force is NOT in agriculture.

 

10.4%

22.1 million full and part time.

BUT ONLY 1.2% working directly on farms.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/

Edited November 20 by Masterofnone

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, Dinar said:

22MM in agriculture jobs?  Are you kidding me? That cannot be correct.  10-15% of the US labor force is NOT in agriculture.

 

My apologies. "Agricultural and food related industries". Didn't realize they included restaurants and food service in with agriculture and food production. 

 

 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/#:~:text=Agriculture and its related industries,percent of total U.S. employment.

Edited November 20 by TwoCitiesCapital

[hasilp89]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:41 PM, hasilp89 said:

Not a stupid question at all. Here is my understanding based on some research. (please correct me where I'm wrong!)

- Executive branch submits a budget proposal to congress each year that is run through the OMB. It is non-binding but serves as a starting point for congress. (Feb each year)

-Congress reviews - each committee goes into detail on their departments and submits for congressional approval (senate/house vote and appropriate as neccesary)

- President has to sign.

 

 

Ultimately Congress has the power of the purse. My assumption is both they and the judiciary branch could push for and enforce that the executive branch is properly enacting, enforcing and funding and laws that are written (checks and balances). Congress could also come back and deny the executive branch's proposals and require that more money is spent on department X or Y.

 

In some cases i think it will be pretty clear cut - say there is a law that says people under the poverty line get $5/day for groceries - the executive branch couldn't just remove that and stop paying it without the law being overturned by congress or ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. On the other hand if that $5 a day payment is administered ineffectively through a costly people intensive program then I'd assume DOGE could find a way to save money. Again this is a hypothetical and i could be way off base. Just trying to think through it logically based on the checks and balances of the US government.

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020?st=H2hni7

 

Maybe they'll do less than they believe, but more than most people think.

[Spekulatius]

Musk won’t last more than 6 months in this role, whatever it actually is.

[Lazarus]

On 11/20/2024 at 5:26 PM, yesman182 said:

How are you coming up with those values? They earned 2.98 per share last year and paid 1.60 in dividends. This year will be about the same. 

I saw it in an article: "The company's diluted earnings per share over the past four quarters are $1.11, less than the $1.60 it pays out in dividends per share over the course of a full year. That puts its payout ratio  it at more than 144%." https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/11/13/is-kraft-heinzs-48-dividend-yield-safe/

 

Just an article, so maybe it's wrong. But I see the same 144% payout ratio listed on yahoo finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/KHC/key-statistics/ 

[Lazarus]

13 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Musk won’t last more than 6 months in this role, whatever it actually is.

 

Why wouldn't he last? This gives him power, which helps him in his business interests. He might not do much work personally, but he'll oversee a team following his instructions. He has an interest in deregulation and this role puts him in position to slash regulation. His companies are also highly dependent on government contracts and subsidies (both SpaceX and Tesla), so he wants to stay inside the power circle. 

[Spekulatius]

12 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Why wouldn't he last? This gives him power, which helps him in his business interests. He might not do much work personally, but he'll oversee a team following his instructions. He has an interest in deregulation and this role puts him in position to slash regulation. His companies are also highly dependent on government contracts and subsidies (both SpaceX and Tesla), so he wants to stay inside the power circle. 

Because Trump and Elon are both Alpha males and there can only be one:

 

[Junior R]

The biggest problem to companies like Meta, Google and other Social Media stocks / other auto maker stocks is if Elon is still Trumps right hand for the entire term there will be more favorable rulings towards Elons companies...This is the tricky part ...In theory Elon should have left the roles at the other companies to do the DOGE role but Elon would do more better for the world at his companies ...lol

 

Trump has created a lot of gotchas for the country  ...Even with DJT being owned by Trump and DJT looking to buy a crypto Firm ...A lot of conflicts lol

Edited November 23 by Junior R

[Lazarus]

Theory and reality are different. Like it or not, the rules made for the plebs don't apply to the likes of Elon and Trump. 

[Xerxes]