LC

We need to start a marriage advice thread ;D

You would need to know the interest rate and life expectancy

Sounds like lax regulation has caused problems.

Time will tell, but I think you can put FB into the same fold. Really? Everything I've seen makes me think they are doing the exact opposite. What makes you think they manage for the long term when their initial customers (college students) have completely abandoned them?

I think it depends where you search. If you are on the investment ideas page, and use the search there, it will bring up results from within that forum. Same with general discussion or other sub-forums.

We got indirectly lucky, were forced to sell a good chuck of the portfolio about 3 weeks ago to fund a house purchase. I am hoping prices decline so I can re-buy over the next 3 months.

Have you read Shipping Man? Sensationalized, but it describes how all the players (lenders, owners, operators, etc.) are aware of hedge funds trying to buy shipping debt cheap in the short-term for upside in the long-term asset value . There are a few good passages in that book relating to this.

It's been a while but I think Marty Whitman has written some good stuff about investing up the capital structure.

Barbarians at the gate

They Fed has to go in and test the controls first, usually in conjunction with management and audit. Scope and impact are determined, and remedial action plans are put in place and need to be accomplished. This coukd probably be a multi year situation until the Fed is satisfied.

Keynes was the guy turning supply side economics on its head, saying it was increased demand which spurs supply increases. When cars were invented, why didn't the horse-and-buggy industry just ramp up supply to increase demand? Regardless, supply vs. demand driven economies is a different discussion...which economists far smarter than us still argue over. I'm not talking about a slowdown in consumption or "wanting" to work. I'm saying, what happens to all the truckers/drivers when we build self-driving cars. Historically they work elsewhere. Because historically there have always been other opportunities for human labor. My question is what if those opportunities slowly dry up? Furthermore, is there evidence that those opportunities are drying up? I can see the argument for 'yes' to the latter question.

We can argue about that (Keynes would disagree) but my question remains. What happens if we become so productive at 'current' activities, and there are no breakthrough technologies to demand additional resources and force re-allocation? I.e. a situation of long-term idle resources/capital. Why would capital costs remain high?

Output for commoditiy products is determined by the demand curve though. Well, mostly (aside from non-market incentives i.e. gov't subsidies). My question is what happens when those ex-farmers are not able to be re-allocated. What happens when we become so productive? Why would capital costs remain high?

Why would output not change? Technological stagnation. Incremental improvements are not as groundbreaking as previous improvements. Take automobiles or farming for example. Why would resources be left idle? As a result of the above. We get so good at building a car, eventually that activity requires less and less resources. The hope is that idle resources are re-allocated elsewhere. Furthermore why would an increase in productivity lead to a decreasing rate of change in output? Again, just the nature of technological improvements. Eventually the activity reaches a level of production right around the cost curve. Only when something truly disruptive emerges does that change. An increase in productivity leads to both and increase in output and lower rates. To a certain point. The market got really great at churning out horse and buggys at one point

Labor, human capital, call it whatever you want. This is semantics. Interest rates are the cost of money insomuch as money represents earnings. Earnings are the result of productivity. If "money" has no intrinsic value then the cost of money is also intrinsically invaluable. Where do you see a difference between cost of capital and cost of money? Yes an increase in productivity results in lower rates. Less resources needed to produce the same output. This assumes "output" doesnt change. My theory is the rate of change in output has been declining, causing the relative increase of overall productivity, hence lower-than-"average" interest rates.

Interest rates represent the cost to rent capital. And capital here represents all forms: human capital, machines, factoreies, aka anything productive. Interest rates represent the average cost of productivity. So the question is how do you price productivity?

I agree, The real test will be if the people selling out for millions will be buying back in.

Here is a good news website for insurance related items: http://www.artemis.bm/

Hey all, Thought of a good idea for a topic: perhaps we as a board can create a compilation of good quality industry/trade resources (preferably free). Here is one to start if off: https://www.dslreports.com/ This is a great website for anything cable/telco related. I have been a member for probably 15 years now, back when I was a computer nerd in high school. The members there are current of ex- industry workers and intelligent customers and enthusiasts. It is frequented by people working 'in the trenches' (e.g. service repairmen, engineers, etc.) so you get some great commentary. They do an excellent job (mostly) of distilling information from a non-investment perspective, which provides a great counterbalance from an investment-focused perspective.

Why am I not surprised you're a pats fan? ;D ;D ;D

Ski areas may be another good one. Or areas around universities. I would guess the better the mountain/uni, the more stable your rental would be.

Mentally I focus on the whole entity. Because it starts from revenues and sales are agnostic.

Maybe this topic will 'trickle down' to the politics section. ;D ;D

Teamwork makes the dream work!

Sure. So if you are a developer and you are looking to buy up a bunch of row houses or brownstones and build a high rise, you most likely need the middle lots. End lots you can theoretically cut out, just cut the building off right before the end lot. Middle lots you need: you can't have a gaping hole right in between of the building (obviously), and the numbers won't work to build 2 high rises on either side of the middle lots. It comes into play when negotiating buyouts, because middle lots can stop the entire project while end lots can be ignored.