Is This Guy For Real?

[bmichaud]

http://www.swingtradingdaily.com/2013/12/09/its-time-to-take-action-against-washington-and-wall-street/

 

I first came across Larry Edelson in my research on the gold market, and he has actually made some great calls on precious metals since 2000, including the peak in 2011. But WOW have his writings turned bizarre lately. It just is further feeding my growing hatred for the newsletter writing community.

 

He is calling for the "war cycle" to start ramping up soon, and supposedly a "source" in Washington is saying the USA is going to impose a 10% wealth tax in order to help pay off debt. Crazy stuff. If this is the case, perhaps this is along the lines of what Cardboard has been talking about with regards to Iran and what the market is missing. Ironically, Larry believes the equity market will rise despite war and confiscation ramping up.

 

How is everyone else incorporating the "war cycles" into their stock picking? hahahah kidding of course  8)

[MrB]

http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgcyc11.pdf

[Guest wellmont]

these gold bugs sell fear.

[Green King]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

[rkbabang]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

 

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century.

[LC]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

 

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century.

 

Agreed. Don't overestimate the decisions of humans in large groups.

[rkbabang]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

 

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century.

 

Agreed. Don't overestimate the decisions of humans in large groups.

 

I agree.  The other popular opinion immediately prior to the first world war was that there was too much wealth, trade, and economic dependencies between the various countries of Europe to go to war.  That the governments would never risk killing the goose that had been laying the golden eggs.  This was all true of course, but they decided to kill the goose anyway.*

 

Never underestimate the desire of the political classes to actually get to use all of these toys that they've spent all these years building.

 

 

*EDIT: Maybe they didn't actually kill the goose, but they did give him a damn good beating, as well as destroying almost every egg it had laid up to that point.

[LC]

Never underestimate the desire of the political classes to actually get to use all of these toys that they've spent all these years building.

 

That's another good one...you have this entire group of people who strongly identify with each other, and they spend a large part of their lives (and invest a lot of their self-identity/self-worth) into something, and then there comes a point in time when they want to actually use that something, less it go to waste and ruin the image of themselves they have created...very hard to convince that person/those people not to do so after the emotional investment they have made.

[oddballstocks]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

 

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century.

 

Agreed. Don't overestimate the decisions of humans in large groups.

 

I agree.  The other popular opinion immediately prior to the first world war was that there was too much wealth, trade, and economic dependencies between the various countries of Europe to go to war.  That the governments would never risk killing the goose that had been laying the golden eggs.  This was all true of course, but they decided to kill the goose anyway.*

 

Never underestimate the desire of the political classes to actually get to use all of these toys that they've spent all these years building.

 

 

*EDIT: Maybe they didn't actually kill the goose, but they did give him a damn good beating, as well as destroying almost every egg it had laid up to that point.

 

There's a great book, "The Guns of August" that expands on this.  One thing I liked was that UK insurance companies were insuring the German fleet before WWI, people thought it would be impossible to go to war due to commercial connections.  Yet the UK was dragged in, and fought against German, mostly against their wishes.

[yadayada]

major wars are no longer profitable also increase the possibility of species extinction if done between major powers. The weapon of war has become too powerful. Beating up the weak countries will still happen but that's nothing new.

 

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century.

Well Germany was really desperate after world war 2 after being milked. And quite a bit of smart people saw that one coming. Havent heard anyone talked about a world war so far.

 

Also world trade exploded compared to world war 1 period. We are much much more globalized, and more well informed. It seems much harder to grab power in large rich enough country and then start a war. Allthough the USA would be a good candidate. China is just too calculated and sneaky to do this.

[CorpRaider]

I keep my gold in a safe in asia with mark faber.  No seriously, my "inflation hedge" would be timber.  I prefer stuff that sits there and grows to stuff that just sits there.

[turar]

I keep my gold in a safe in asia with mark faber.  No seriously, my "inflation hedge" would be timber.  I prefer stuff that sits there and grows to stuff that just sits there.

How are you investing in timber?

[LC]

I keep my gold in a safe in asia with mark faber.  No seriously, my "inflation hedge" would be timber.  I prefer stuff that sits there and grows to stuff that just sits there.

How are you investing in timber?

Buy land and harvest regularly...it provides a great workout too! :D

[rkbabang]

There's a great book, "The Guns of August" that expands on this.  One thing I liked was that UK insurance companies were insuring the German fleet before WWI, people thought it would be impossible to go to war due to commercial connections.  Yet the UK was dragged in, and fought against German, mostly against their wishes.

 

Thanks, I'm adding that to my to-read list.

[CorpRaider]

I keep my gold in a safe in asia with mark faber.  No seriously, my "inflation hedge" would be timber.  I prefer stuff that sits there and grows to stuff that just sits there.

How are you investing in timber?

 

You could do CUT, WOOD, PCL or RYN.  WEB has called out PCL once upon a time.  Its a little rich for my blood at the moment, but I've owned it in the past.  Or you could straight up buy some timberland; you can get some state tax advantages in some states. 

[bmichaud]

Malone owns something like over half of the timberland here in Maine - of course it is all for the tax advantages. hahahha I love it :)

[CorpRaider]

Yeah or you could do that.  Buy half of Maine.  Timber really must have had a prolific lobby.  Even the timber reits get to pass through mostly cap gains because of the treatment of timber.  There's a whole BNA portfolio on taxation of timber.  hah!  I kid you not. 

[Guest ajc]

Well Germany was really desperate after world war 2 after being milked. And quite a bit of smart people saw that one coming. Havent heard anyone talked about a world war so far.

 

This may simply be because in a globalized world, these opinions are almost impossible for the mainstream media to voice.

 

Look at Bloomberg, or JP Morgan, and you quickly realize that the world has changed from one of pre-WW1 localized economies to one of worldwide (often lateral) ownership.

With that, comes the risk of repossession and retaliation for the smallest of perceived slights.

 

Any real talk of a potential war between China and Japan on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal would therefore quickly result in huge diplomatic pressure against the US government as well as screws being tightened on News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch personally.

More trouble than it's worth, so it's cheaper to not discuss it. That way you avoid the accusations of nationalism, racialism and political interference as well as holding onto your foreign assets and business.

 

If you want to seriously find out more about the odds of a large-scale global conflict, you're better off visiting some looney-tune websites from time to time and sifting through the mountain of crap for the 1 or 2 worthwhile geopolitical insights you're likely to find every couple of weeks...

[oddballstocks]

I have looked extensively at timber as a personal investment.  I've looked at direct holding, which is all I'd want.  There are a few vehicles if you want something traded, look at KEWL, they have some mining upside as well.

 

Here was my grand theory in Pennsylvania.  I wanted to buy up "junk" land, areas that aren't suitable for building, but have no problems sustaining a forest.  There is a LOT of areas like this, my entire backyard is a small example.  I live at the top of a hill, the whole backside of the hill is forested but can't be built on.  I wanted to buy areas like this cheaply.

 

I explored different options and found a way to get these plots of land for about $1k an acre or less in tax sales.  So I start to move forward with this plan and my timing happened to terrible, the shale gas was found at the same time.  Suddenly all these people with junk land think they're sitting on gold mines with mineral rights.  The price of an empty acre went from $1k-5k.  At $5k an acre there is zero money for timber.

 

This is still something in the back of my mind, and I look from time to time, but it's harder to find good land.  My criteria was land I could drive to (4hrs or less) and with reasonable drainage and the potential for hardwoods.  Ragnar on the board mentioned there is some cheap land in Kentucky, but it's out of my easy driving range.  Maybe if I land more time I'll continue to explore this further.

 

 

[oddballstocks]

Well Germany was really desperate after world war 2 after being milked. And quite a bit of smart people saw that one coming. Havent heard anyone talked about a world war so far.

 

This may simply be because in a globalized world, these opinions are almost impossible for the mainstream media to voice.

 

Look at Bloomberg, or JP Morgan, and you quickly realize that the world has changed from one of pre-WW1 localized economies to one of worldwide (often lateral) ownership.

With that, comes the risk of repossession and retaliation for the smallest of perceived slights.

 

Any real talk of a potential war between China and Japan on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal would therefore quickly result in huge diplomatic pressure against the US government as well as screws being tightened on News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch personally.

More trouble than it's worth, so it's cheaper to not discuss it. That way you avoid the accusations of nationalism, racialism and political interference as well as holding onto your foreign assets and business.

 

If you want to seriously find out more about the odds of a large-scale global conflict, you're better off visiting some looney-tune websites from time to time and sifting through the mountain of crap for the 1 or 2 worthwhile geopolitical insights you're likely to find every couple of weeks...

 

I recommend you read "Guns of August" because ALL of the arguments you made were made before WWI as well.  The world was very globalized then, especially Europe.  Many rulers were intermarried, there was essentially a ruling family across most of Western Europe.  War was thought to be impossible, commercial ties were strong, and the mood at the time was that the world had progressed beyond war, especially a European war.

 

I'm not saying we're heading to a global war, but I'm saying that all this talk of why a global war is impossible is just history repeating 100 years later.  We've forgotten the lessons of the past.

[Tim Eriksen]

I have looked extensively at timber as a personal investment.  I've looked at direct holding, which is all I'd want.  There are a few vehicles if you want something traded, look at KEWL, they have some mining upside as well.

 

Never been a fan of KEWL in terms of share price in relation to value of assets.  And don't even get me started on the quality of management. Since you can't harvest all your trees at once, cash flow is still what matters.  PDER is my preference, even though it has become more of coal royalty play the last decade.  With 700,000 shares at $220 and they own 150,000 acres of timber it ends up being close to 1k per acre.  Annual reports are on scribd. 

[oddballstocks]

I have looked extensively at timber as a personal investment.  I've looked at direct holding, which is all I'd want.  There are a few vehicles if you want something traded, look at KEWL, they have some mining upside as well.

 

Never been a fan of KEWL in terms of share price in relation to value of assets.  And don't even get me started on the quality of management. Since you can't harvest all your trees at once, cash flow is still what matters.  PDER is my preference, even though it has become more of coal royalty play the last decade.  With 700,000 shares at $220 and they own 150,000 acres of timber it ends up being close to 1k per acre.  Annual reports are on scribd.

 

Tim, I agree on KEWL's management, their letters to shareholders trying to refute the activist who targeted them is all you need to read.

 

PDER is a good company, I'm familiar with what they own and the areas they own it, they're good assets.  The nice thing about them is their holdings seem to balance each other out.  When coal is bad timber helps them etc.

[MrB]

War is a human condition and as certain as greed and fear in the markets.

 

[bmichaud]

Yeah or you could do that.  Buy half of Maine.  Timber really must have had a prolific lobby.  Even the timber reits get to pass through mostly cap gains because of the treatment of timber.  There's a whole BNA portfolio on taxation of timber.  hah!  I kid you not.

 

 

Sorry for the ignorance, but can you explain the BNA taxation port? Does it invest in tax credits or something like that? (likely an incredibly dumb question, just am trying to learn more about various taxation strategies etc...)

[CorpRaider]

Sorry, the portfolios are just reference books on taxation topics published by BNA.  They're often referred to as the "comic books" by the tax jocks.  You can probably get your hands on them at a local law library or maybe one at a business school.  They're usually just a good starting point to get an overview of a subject.  It has been a while (years) since I looked at the area.  I think PCL has some stuff on their site about the dividend treatment for their investors that might be interesting to you.  WY or RYN might have some presentations as well since they both (fairly) recently converted to REITs with greater straight timber focus (I think).